Jun 3 2009, 1:56PM
Why Harvard Lets Discriminatory Groups On Campus
According to the Wall Street Journal, David Petraeus will be at Harvard today to address a commissioning ceremony for the seven graduates of the university who are joining the armed forces. It would be an interesting moment for a reflection on the relationship between privilege and service, but instead former Bush speechwriter William McGurn devotes his entire WSJ column to the weird notion that Harvard should be declining all of its federal funding:
On its Web page, Harvard Law School cites the university's nondiscrimination policy and then goes on to describe how it lives up to that principle:
"The Harvard Law School makes one exception to this policy. Under threat of loss of funding to the University resulting from the Solomon Amendment, the Law School has suspended the application of its nondiscrimination policy to military recruiters."
You don't have to be a lawyer to get the point: Even though we are one of the world's wealthiest universities, we'd rather make an exception to our principles than give up the money. So we'll do what the Solomon Amendment requires and hold our noses.
Oh please. As I'm sure McGurn knows perfectly well, the reason Harvard Law School adopted this policy is because Congress changed the rules of the Solomon Amendment in 2001 so that if Harvard Law School (or any school within a larger university) barred military recruiters over Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the entire university would lose its federal funding. Standing on principle is all well and good, but it's quite a bit different from imposing your principles on others -- which is what the rule change asked the law school to do. You don't have to be a columnist for the Wall Street Journal to get this point.
A somewhat broader and more obvious point is that Institutions of higher education can contain a multitude of principles. One is "provide the best possible education to your students." Another easy one (for Harvard at least) is "don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."
But institutional principles can and do conflict. If Harvard Medical School gives up tens of millions of dollars in federal research grants (at stake: "provide the best education possible") so that Harvard Law School can prohibit an organization from recruiting on campus (at stake: "don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation") does "principle" really win? It seems to me that the careful and pragmatic management of tradeoffs is just how every reasonably nuanced organization gets things done.
Image from Flickr user Gosh@
It seems to be a favorite tactic of lazy writers: bullheadedly claim the high ground on an issue, condemning any hint of pragmatism or compromise as moral cowardice.
I'm not sure why it's so popular. Certainly some of it is the invade Myanmar syndrome -- when there's no chance that anyone will act on your meaningless posturing, it's easy to ignore the actual consequences. But I think it runs a little deeper than that. Our society ascribes wisdom to sufficiently purposeful incoherence. If you're brazen enough to talk in absolutes ("you can't put a price on a human life" or "nothing is more important than justice") without any sense that there's actually a tradeoff, you're more likely to be lauded for your depth of character than ridiculed for your simplemindedness. This happens despite the fact that we all implicitly make tradeoffs involving our most cherished principles every day -- after all, whatever the price of life may be, it apparently isn't high enough that we stop riding for convenience's sake in deadly, polluting hunks of steel.
I may be a bit too simplistic, but I don't see that the military discriminates with the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, rather it just says we'll turn a blind eye to your behavior. The best way to run an organization, I don't know. I served with a lot of gay folks and it was never an issue. I'm sure the Harvard facutly abides by a similar standard with the conservative thinkers that fly under the radar in those hallowed halls.
ha, I got a chuckle out of that last sentence.
I agree that DADT is less pernicious than outright discrimination, but it still strikes me as pernicious. The problem isn't just the degree to which they are cracking down on a certain characteristic; it's that they are cracking down on it to begin with.
Conor
There is some logic to this argument but I offer, in its place, an alternative explanation for Harvard's discriminatory practices: expedience.
If principle is the guiding criterion, then why not predicate one's actions on foundational principles, such as freedom? I would argue that the military (and for full disclosure I did serve and I'm a proud member of the American Legion) provides the basis on which Harvard is allowed to make ill-informed choices.
The Constitution speaks to the role of the military in society. We have an honored tradition in support of Harvard College's right to express their views. I do not recall it written in our founding documents that nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation as being a guiding principle.
Fundamentally, I think that Harvard is wrong in their beliefs and, by extension, Conor Clarke. I suspect that their antipathy to the Solomon Amendment stems from a their dislike for all things military and, some vague unease, with the idea of "militarism".
Frankly, if I were in charge, I would go a lot farther in forcing compliance with the Solomon Amendment than even the Bush Administration. I would actively prosecute institutions who were out of compliance with the Solomon Amendment.
So, as the aphorism goes, if Harvard "wants to have its cake and eat it too", then it should, in a similar vein to little Hillsdale College, decline to accept federal funds, conflicting principles notwithstanding.
Mike Doherty
Windham, ME
I think you give me too much credit! I actually wish Harvard law school did accept military recruiters, since I think the class/privilege disparity in the armed services is a national embarrassment and a great discredit to our democracy to have the levers of political power so completely divorced from the people who will pay the price. It's also clear to me that DADT will disappear over time, while it's not clear that the above disparity will get any better on its own. Keeping recruiters off campus perpetuates an anti-military sentiment that doesn't help, at least.
That said, I find the arguments against DADT overwhelmingly convincing, so I don't begrudge HLS its stand. It might the case, as you say, that DADT is being used as a veil for anti-military sentiment, but my understanding of the chronology is only half true. (And it wasn't true at all where I went to college, which is the situation I know best.)
THanks for this comment.
Conor
There is some logic to this argument but I offer, in its place, an alternative explanation for Harvard's discriminatory practices: expedience.
If principle is the guiding criterion, then why not predicate one's actions on foundational principles, such as freedom? I would argue that the military (and for full disclosure I did serve and I'm a proud member of the American Legion) provides the basis on which Harvard is allowed to make ill-informed choices.
The Constitution speaks to the role of the military in society. We have an honored tradition in support of Harvard College's right to express their views. I do not recall it written in our founding documents that nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation as being a guiding principle.
Fundamentally, I think that Harvard is wrong in their beliefs and, by extension, Conor Clarke. I suspect that their antipathy to the Solomon Amendment stems from a their dislike for all things military and, some vague unease, with the idea of "militarism".
Frankly, if I were in charge, I would go a lot farther in forcing compliance with the Solomon Amendment than even the Bush Administration. I would actively prosecute institutions who were out of compliance with the Solomon Amendment.
So, as the aphorism goes, if Harvard "wants to have its cake and eat it too", then it should, in a similar vein to little Hillsdale College, decline to accept federal funds, conflicting principles notwithstanding.
Mike Doherty
Windham, ME
I think the military should repeal don't ask don't tell, but I agree with the above commenter that it's not a discriminatory policy. Unquestionably, a key ingrediant towards a successful combat force is unit cohesian. Also unquestionably, empirically a unit of single sex soldiers who live and fight in close proximity to one another will establish a different set of relationships than a unit where some members are sexually attracted to one another. Also unquestionably, as an empirical matter homosexual males will usually (but not always) form closer friendship bonds with females and fellow homosexual males than with heterosexual males, much as heterosexual males tend to bond more often as an empirical matter with other heterosexual males.
I do think there is no justification to apply don't ask don't tell to non-combat roles. That said, I think it is important for America's elite universities to be supportive of the military. This issue should not excuse disrespect for the institution that protects our lives and liberty.
There's a good argument to be had here, but I do find that position slightly circular. I think it is certainly true that a lot of heterosexual males in the military won't bond with homosexual comrades. But I think that's the heterosexuals' fault! Even if it's true as an empirical matter, that empirical problem is no good defense of bad policy. The question should become: How do we change the empirical problem (ie, the potential lack of cohesion)?
Seems to me that integration would be helpful in this regard tho I think maybe there's room for disagreement there.
Conor
I think perhaps you should reassess whatever personal biases you may have as they seem to be seeping into your logic.
You seem to be making the quite common assumption that if a man is gay, then he is attracted to all men. Are heterosexual men attracted to all women? Alot of gay men I know are only attracted to other gay men (the ineffableness of gaydar). There is also a large gap between having attraction, and acting on it. On a similar note, on what evidence do you base your assertion that gay men are more likely to be friends with women then heterosexual men?
I think you are mistaking stereotypes with emperical evidence.
If you want to talk about the single largest cultural issue effecting the military, I would say it is not homosexuality but rather religion. There has been a large shift in military culture over the last few decades with an increasing bent on evangelisim. From the Christian Embassy scandal at the Pentagon, to the coercion experienced at the Air Force Academy with regard to prostelytizing amongst cadets. I have never seen homosexuals recruit in the military or otherwise(at least in a way that didn't involve a joke and a drink at a bar) but I cannot say the same thing about religion. As american citizens we all have the right to practice religion as we see fit, but tell me how does it help unit cohesion to have one NCO tell their non believing enlisted men that they are going to hell?
There is actually a good reason for university to allow military recruiters, ROTC, and similar organizations on campus, even if they disagree with the military stance regarding homosexuals.
The military is an institution, and like any institution it will reflect to a large degree the viewpoints of the individuals who make it up. The military leans [socially] conservative because so much of its membership is from areas which are socially conservative (and hence its members).
Universities tend to [by nature I'd argue] be more liberal, hence if the military is recruiting from Harvard, and other universities, it is likely they will have more and more liberally minded members, and hence the institution of the military itself will become more liberal. As it comes more liberal, it is more likely to get rid of don't ask, don't tell (which is a discriminatory policy, despite what some above me seem to think)