How nice of them. Harvard University is expected to sign an agreement tomorrow where they will resume funding a naval ROTC program and allow a military director officially on campus. This is, of course, insufficient – the last time I checked, the US military has more than one branch, and the Solomon Amendment did not permit a gradual approach towards obeying federal law [see UPDATE] – but I suppose that we have to make some allowances towards narrow provincial prejudices like those found at Harvard.
Although if it was up to me, we wouldn’t be making any allowances towards this kind of prejudice at all. Which is probably why it is not up to me.
[UPDATE]: I am politely, gently, and quite relentlessly schooled on some of the technical aspects of this development in comments by a friend of mine who I know knows about this sort of thing. I still reserve the right to sneer at Harvard University’s provincialism in general.
This Inside Higher Ed article (H/T: Instapundit) on Columbia’s (and the rest of the Ivy League’s) contempt for the military does its readers a grave disservice: it adamantly refuses to even acknowledge that colleges that ban ROTC from campus are ineligible for federal funding. This is an annoying, yet ultimately unsurprising omission, given that the only way that anybody can even have a ‘debate’ on this subject is by ignoring the clear will of the American electorate, which is currently involuntarily subsidizing the ‘right’ of academics to remain anti-military bigots. But there is no debate. There is no negotiation. There is merely the law, and whether it is being complied with.
Seriously, let us quote the Solomon Amendment, yet one more time:
(a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to Campus. – No funds described in subsection (d)(1) may be provided by contract or by grant to an institution of higher education (including any subelement of such institution) if the Secretary of Defense determines that that institution (or any subelement of that institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents –
(1) the Secretary of a military department from maintaining, establishing, or operating a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance with section 654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws) at that institution (or any subelement of that institution); or
(2) a student at that institution (or any subelement of that institution) from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher education.
Continue reading Smash the ROTC ‘Roadblock.’
With the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell almost certain now to be passed into law*, there has been some discussion of one thing that conservatives and Republicans will absolutely require to have happen: to wit, the ending of the Ivy League’s continuing campaign against the military by forbidding ROTC programs on their campuses. Said campaign absolutely flaunts the intent of Congress (as per the ‘Solomon Amendment’), but has been generally tacitly tolerated by the government while the larger issue of gays serving openly in the military was still an open question. Which, again, it no longer is.
But, – various articles to the contrary – the Ivy League’s response to news that the Senate has voted to repeal is not in fact acceptable. For example, Harvard President Drew Faust responded with “I look forward to pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard’s full and formal recognition of ROTC.” To which the only reply can be: no, that’s the wrong answer. The correct answer would have been “Upon formal signing of this law into place, Harvard University will immediately cease and desist all aspects of its civil disobedience campaign and put itself in full compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 983 (the Solomon Amendment).” That is not negotiable, and I would remind President Faust – and the rest of the Ivy League – of the following facts: Continue reading Harvard’s disingenuous Solomon Amendment statement.
Instapundit passes along an excellent point from one of his readers: the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy has been ordered suspended, via judicial fiat. The military has complied with the court order, although they strongly disagree with it: there is a moratorium on enforcing DADT, and openly gay soldiers may serve. Whether you are happy with this development or not*, there is one detail about this which is kind of important: the stated reason Ivy League colleges typically give for forbidding ROTC programs on campus has just gone away. The military just stopped discharging openly gay soldiers. It’s over. The Ivy League won.
So let’s get those ROTC programs back on those campuses.
Seriously. Theoretically, this should happen by, say, lunchtime: but the effective deadline for this is by next January. That’s when at least one House of Congress abruptly shifts to the control of the political party that takes the Solomon Amendment seriously. Not to mention the political party that’s going to be looking for places to cut the budget everywhere they can.
Hint. Hint. [Expletive deleted] hint.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
Continue reading Ivy League to bring back ROTC any second now, right?
It stands for the National Defense Council Foundation…
…and it’s a NGO defense-oriented conservative think-tank that’s been calling for the conversion of American transportation to alternative fuels since at least 2003. Its chairman, retired military veteran James Martin, writes:
On behalf of NDCF supporters who proudly represent all branches of the military, it strikes me that Mr. Murphy’s writings at his alma mater, Harvard University, when he was editor of a university magazine, Perspective, do not jibe with the majority views of the people of the 20th Congressional District of New York.
Murphy apparently co-authored an editorial critical of the military and questioned its longstanding traditions and structure. In the same editorial, Murphy railed against having ROTC outposts on college campuses, “Bringing ROTC on campus is not the best way of helping the economically disadvantaged.” (Perspective, Summer 1989).
His attacks on our nation’s military demonstrate just how out-of-touch he is. This is the same District that was once served by the late Republican Congressman, Jerry Solomon.
First off, Jim Tedisco. Republican. Running for the seat. Doesn’t hate the military. Donate here.
Continue reading NDCF Chair condemns Scott Murphy’s anti-military stance.
Do not blame me for the fact that he is on the record with this.
(H/T: Hot Air) That’s a serious question, because he signed his name to an article saying precisely that back in college. The quote goes:
The military not only discriminates on the basis of sexual preference, but on the basis of sex and race. Women are not allowed to serve in combat even if they are physically superior to males who do serve in combat. And, while there are not explicit rules discriminating against minorities, the Congressional Black Caucus has found that “racism has become institutionalized at all levels of the military. Black and other minority service men are victims of discrimination from the time that they enter the services until the time that they are discharged.” Will Harvard choose to ignore this discrimination?
Murphy went on to declare that military values – which he proceeded to get wrong, as only a liberal Democratic Ivy League student can – are directly contradictory to those of Harvard University, or at least the Harvard University of twenty years ago. I would like to say that Harvard’s grown up a little since then, but it’d be a lie. Still, I’d like to know: has Murphy?
PS: Jazz Shaw has more; so does this site, even if they can’t get the name of the NRCC right. But one of their commenters noted that parts of this district were once Gerald Solomon’s (I think), so that works out. And, of course, see also Erick’s post on the subject.
PPS: Jim Tedisco. Republican. Running for the seat. Doesn’t hate the military. Donate here.
Crossposted to RedState.