« Well It's About Time.... | Main | People Who Should Not Be Allowed to Use Email »

October 05, 2010

Harvard's Hypocrisy Diversity Problem

Matty O'Blackfive riffs on a Glenn Reynolds essay about Harvard's ongoing diversity problem:

The hypocrisy of the Ivy League is profound. The ultimate irony of all of this is a school that, veiled in the spirit of the First Amendment, invites a murderer, a terrorist and a madman to lecture at a university that also denies ROTC which produces the soldiers that take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Matt was kind enough to link to something I wrote on this issue back in 2005 (good nightshirt!):

America's elite universities have cloaked their hostility to our armed forces in the language of civil rights. They portray this as a principled stand against the military's legal policy of discharging homosexuals ("don't ask, don't tell"). It's an interesting stance, since these colleges booted ROTC off campus long before "don't ask, don't tell" became official policy:

As it is, the military's policy on gays wasn't the reason Columbia originally expelled ROTC in 1969. Rather, it was opposition to the Vietnam War and, once that was over, reflexive hostility to all things military. On other campuses, that hostility has abated in recent years, particularly after 9/11; Princeton, Cornell, Dartmouth and the University of Pennsylvania, among Ivy League schools, have ROTC programs, while Harvard University President Larry Summers has been outspoken in his advocacy for ROTC's return to Harvard.

Universities claim that this is a First Amendment issue: that by forcing them to grant access to military recruiters, Congress is forcing them to tacitly express approval for a policy they disagree with. As I argue here, this argument is preposterous:

Universities can and do sponsor a wide variety of speakers, some of whom (Ward Churchill comes to mind) advocate extreme and morally offensive points of view. Allowing or facilitating speech does not constitute official endorsement of a speaker's viewpoint. If it did, robust debate would be impossible as only one side of an argument can be 'endorsed' by an institution at a given moment in time.

This line of reasoning is made even more laughable when you consider that colleges vigorously resist any attempt by students, alumni, or tuition-paying parents to limit their freedom to hire speakers (an affirmative action that requires a school to first choose and then compensate a speaker for expressing a given viewpoint), yet see no hypocrisy in refusing to passively allow access to military recruiters; an act which, especially if compelled by federal law, can in no way be reasonably construed to imply approval or acceptance.

In a far away country, a company of Marine Reservists from Ohio, citizen-soldiers, have paid the ultimate price for the freedoms Columbia's professors now take for granted. They were very likely, like most Marines, plain-spoken men. Men of deeds, not words.

Their families and the few members of "Lucky Lima" who survived will never forget the awful price of freedom, even when it is purchased for someone else. They will never forget what it costs to keep us secure here in our comfortable homes. They do not need to be lectured about civil rights, they who paid the ultimate price to bring the most basic of rights to others.

Most times I cringe when I go back and read old posts. Not this time.

I wouldn't change a word.

Posted by Cassandra at October 5, 2010 12:02 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3920

Comments

Of course, there are a handful of ROTC students attending Harvard, though they have to take their ROTC classes down the street at MIT:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/10/05/at_harvard_rotc_students_in_an_awkward_limbo/

According to the article, (Harvard president)Faust's dad is a decorated WWII vet and she attends the ROTC commissioning ceremony every year.

Harvard also provides financial assistance to veterans above and beyond what is offered in the new GI Bill.

Posted by: Craig at October 5, 2010 01:51 PM

If the ROTC students are taking their classes at MIT, then they are not affiliated with Harvard except as ordinary students -- they are members of the *MIT* ROTC unit -- Harvard banned the ROTC program from its campus forty years ago.

Harvard's financial assistance is based on an agreement with the VA to provide matching funds, but only for in-state residents, and only for an amount specified by each separate college at Harvard -- the veteran is still required to make up the difference in tuition.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/6/18/harvard-schools-vary-widely-in-level/

By contrast, Rutgers (and several other universities in the state of New Jersey) provides *free* tuition to NJ National Guardsmen and will waive *any* veterans' tuition fees in excess of those provided under the GI Bill.

Posted by: BillT at October 5, 2010 03:11 PM

Yes, they are "ordinary" Harvard students wearing camo on campus, which is the opposite of what Mr. Reynolds would have you believe.

Also, from here:

http://www.military.com/education/content/gi-bill/the-yellow-ribbon-program-explained.html


"If you are attending a private college, graduate school or attending in a non-resident status and that school is a Yellow Ribbon participating school (i.e. Harvard, Brown, etc.), additional funds may be available for your education program without an additional charge to your entitlement.

Posted by: Craig at October 6, 2010 09:47 AM

Yes, they are "ordinary" Harvard students wearing camo on campus, which is the opposite of what Mr. Reynolds would have you believe.

By what convolution of logic did you deduce that statement from this one?

"Although Harvard expelled ROTC over the Vietnam War four decades ago (after antiwar students burned down the ROTC center), it now gives as a reason for not reinstating the program the military's adherence to 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' -- though that program was instituted under President Bill Clinton, who has not been similarly barred from the Harvard campus."

And nothing you've said rebuts Reynolds' point --

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 10:11 AM

-- or mine, for that matter.

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 10:13 AM

Pet peeve, and people from ideological stripes fall prey to it, DADT does not discharge people from the military for homosexual behavior. That was the policy before DADT.

DADT allows people with same sex orientation to serve - if they keep said behavior away from their duty station.

The policy before DADT was that commanders had the discretion to discharge service members. DADT gave that discretion to the service members themselves.

FWIW: That is why discharges for homosexual behavior went up under DADT, it became an "easy out". No proof is required, just tell on yourself and you are out of the service.

Posted by: Doug H at October 6, 2010 10:59 AM

To follow up from my previous post; when Harvard protests the military for DADT, it is basically saying that the military should discharge based on sexual behavior. That was the prior policy after all.


I don't think that Harvard, or the GLBT community, have really thought out their opposition to a policy that allows GLBT to serve.

Posted by: Doug H at October 6, 2010 11:07 AM

Despite being told innumerable times that DADT is only the policy that allows homosexuals to serve without being discharged for fraudulent enlistment under the law, the Libs still continue to confuse the policy with the law.

Which either means that they're too arrogant to admit the possibility that they were mistaken or that they're as dense as a blast wall...

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 01:02 PM

BillT,

I didn't deduce my statement from the portion you quoted.

I deduced it from the title of the article, "Every color but camo".

And the photo of ROTC students with the caption:

"Banned by Ivy League prejudice"

Also, I wasn't trying to rebut you but, now that you mention it, you did say that Yellow Ribbon financing is only for in-state residents, which isn't true.

Posted by: Craig at October 6, 2010 01:33 PM

So Craig, are you then saying that because Harvard offers alternatives to students that want ROTC that it's ok for them not to allow ROTC on campus?

So separate but equal is fine?

Huh.

Posted by: MikeD at October 6, 2010 01:53 PM

No Mike.

Discrimination is fine. Harvard actively discriminates against ROTC. It will not allow the to use campus facilities for meetings the way they allow other groups (gay/lesbian, blacks, other minorities) to do even though many of these groups openly practice discrimination (the ostensible reason Harvard cites for refusing to allow ROTC on campus).

Discrimination is fine with Craig so long as he likes those who are doing the discriminating :p

Posted by: Cassandra at October 6, 2010 02:01 PM

I didn't deduce my statement from the portion you quoted.
I deduced it from the title of the article, "Every color but camo".

So, you based your argument on the title of the article, not the content. Swift move.

Also, I wasn't trying to rebut you but, now that you mention it, you did say that Yellow Ribbon financing is only for in-state residents, which isn't true.

According to the Crimson article I linked:

"The recently-approved Yellow Ribbon Program — part of a new G.I. Bill that promises to pay up to the maximum in-state public undergraduate tuition rate..."

It specifically says

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 02:19 PM

..."in-state."

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 02:19 PM

Not in the World According to Garp..errr, Craig. In *that* world everything is as he says it is because he says so. No proof needed because he is the proof that he has been waiting for. Why, I'd bet he even knows what the definition of *is* is.

Posted by: DL Sly at October 6, 2010 03:30 PM

BillT,

The GI bill pays in-state max.

Yellow Ribbon goes above and beyond, as my first and second link states.


Cassandra,

Also from the Globe article:

"The Harvard ROTC Association, a student group, reserves rooms and other amenities for the cadets and midshipmen on campus."

Where's the discrimination, again?

Posted by: Craig at October 6, 2010 04:14 PM

"The Harvard ROTC Association, a student group, reserves rooms and other amenities for the cadets and midshipmen on campus."

And that negates the Administration's refusal to allow the ROTC program on campus -- how?

The entire article was about Harvard's refusal to allow the ROTC program to be re-established on campus, and the only rebuttal you've offered is that Harvard students are allowed to join the ROTC program at MIT.

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 04:18 PM

The GI bill pays in-state max.
Yellow Ribbon goes above and beyond, as my first and second link states.

If the GI Bill paid the maximum in-state tuition, then why have Yelloe Ribbon? It's not a program to give a veteran extra money, it's a program to cover the GI Bill's shortfalls.

The Crimson article is an extract of the information at http://www.gibill.va.gov, which specifies the amount of the shortfall that each college covers, and that Yellow Ribbon matches.

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 04:26 PM

"Yellow." "Yellow" Ribbon.

Dang typing by laptop light...

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 04:27 PM

The GI bill pays in-state max.

Indeed? The GI Bill has changed since I used mine? Interesting. See, back in 1992 when I signed up, my signing bonus was the Army College fund (which paid above and beyond what the general GI Bill did. The exact amount of the bonus was $27,000. To qualify, I was required to pay in $100 per month for twelve months as good faith payments that I wasn't just using the Army as a "scholorship path". I ETS'ed in 1997 and promptly went to school using that same College Fund. Combined with the GI Bill, it payed EXACTLY $870 per month. That was a flat rate. Had I gone to Harvard, MIT, or any other big name/big price school, it would pay $870 per month. Not the in-state max. $870. I happened to go to a small University here in Georgia. My quarterly tuition was about $1000. Thus, I made out like a bandit on my $870 per month.

The point is, unless something DRASTICALLY changed in the GI Bill from 1997 till now (and I'm NOT saying it didn't... but I do doubt it did), the GI Bill did not, and probably DOES NOT pay in-state maximum tuition. And I'd need to see actual evidence before I accept the statement that it does.

And you didn't answer me Craig. Is Harvard's "separate but equal" policy acceptable? Or do you feel I am mischaracterizing it. If so, please explain to me how it is not a form of segregation.

Posted by: MikeD at October 6, 2010 04:37 PM

The GI Bill has changed since I used mine?

My GI Bill changed before I even got to use it. Congress turned it into their pay raise.

Posted by: BillT at October 6, 2010 04:47 PM

From here:

http://www.gibill.va.gov/post-911/post-911-gi-bill-summary/

This Post 9-11 GI Bill will pay eligible individuals:

Tuition & fees directly to the school not to exceed the maximum in-state tuition & fees at a public Institution of Higher Learning.

For more expensive tuition, a program exists which may help to reimburse the difference. This program is called the "Yellow Ribbon Program".

Posted by: Craig at October 6, 2010 05:56 PM

MikeD,

If a Harvard student was allowed to conduct research at MIT's Laboratory for Multiscale Regenerative Technologies while still attending Harvard, would you that believe that Harvard was discriminating against that student or that Harvard's bigotry against multiscale regenerative technologies resulted in a "seperate but equal" policy at Harvard?

Posted by: Craig at October 6, 2010 06:16 PM

Tuition & fees directly to the school not to exceed the maximum in-state tuition & fees at a public Institution of Higher Learning.

That statement does *not* say the GIB will pay the max in-state tuition.

If a Harvard student was allowed to conduct research at MIT's Laboratory for Multiscale Regenerative Technologies while still attending Harvard, would you that believe that Harvard was discriminating against that student or that Harvard's bigotry against multiscale regenerative technologies resulted in a "seperate but equal" policy at Harvard?

You're still ignoring the point, which is that Harvard is refusing to re-instate the ROTC Program based on a bogus excuse.

Posted by: BillT at October 7, 2010 02:01 AM

Heh.

If a Harvard student was allowed to conduct research at MIT's Laboratory for Multiscale Regenerative Technologies while still attending Harvard...

Harvard and MIT have a joint Multiscale Regenerative Technologies research program, so Harvard is not "allowing" the student to study at MIT at all -- he is enrolled in a joint-studies program which *requires* him to study at MIT some of the time.

...would you that believe that Harvard was discriminating against that student or that Harvard's bigotry against multiscale regenerative technologies resulted in a "seperate but equal" policy at Harvard?

Harvard is not "allowing" the students who desire to earn a military commission to enroll in MIT's ROTC program, it is *forcing* those students to enroll in the MIT program -- for no good reason.

Posted by: BillT at October 7, 2010 05:13 AM

Seriously, that's your argument? So I suppose that not allowing black students into an Ivy League school dorm because they made arrangements to give them off campus housing instead would have been perfectly fine? Or letting Jewish students take their classes at MIT instead of Harvard would be an acceptable accommodation?

No, I guess it's not discrimination because those poor stupid dupes just want to take ROTC which shouldn't be afforded the same basic human respect as the rest of us, huh.

Sometimes I get the feeling that red, yellow, black and brown are protected colors, but green can go piss up a rope as far as the left is concerned.

Posted by: MikeD at October 7, 2010 10:13 AM

You forgot white, Mike. According to the left that color is even lower than green. And heaven forbid a person be a white male wearing green.
0>;~|

Posted by: DL Sly at October 7, 2010 03:55 PM

You're still ignoring the point,

Got to have a shaft to get a point on the spear.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2010 05:10 PM

he is enrolled in a joint-studies program which *requires* him to study at MIT some of the time.

Too many big words Craig can't understand. Ones like "requires". Tish tosh, Bill.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at October 7, 2010 05:12 PM

Probable Harvard alum, then?

Posted by: BillT at October 8, 2010 09:17 AM

BillT,

Claiming that DADT is a bogus excuse does not make it so.

Posted by: Craig at October 8, 2010 10:08 AM

MikeD,

"not allowing black students into an Ivy League school dorm because they made arrangements to give them off campus housing instead would have been perfectly fine"

If Harvard was doing that to ROTC students, that would indeed indicate discrimination, but they aren't doing that, are they?

In fact, Harvard is allowing ROTC students to get the benefits of a Harvard education and a military commission and Harvard is providing financial assistance to veterans above and beyond what the GI Bill will pay for.

How anyone considers that "pissing up a rope" is mind-boggling.

Posted by: Craig at October 8, 2010 10:30 AM

If Harvard was doing that to ROTC students, that would indeed indicate discrimination, but they aren't doing that, are they?

YES THEY ARE! They're doing that VERY thing. ROTC is not allowed on Harvard's campus. Instead, Harvard allows its students to take ROTC classes over at MIT. In a program not hosted by, nor sponsored by Harvard itself. They're not actually paying for the students to take ROTC classes, nor are they paying for the instruction space, the instructors, or ANY OF IT. It is an MIT ROTC program, run over on the MIT campus, by MIT. Just as surely as if Harvard would not allow Jews, or homosexuals, or (*gasp*) Republicans to take classes in Harvard Law but made arrangements to allow them to take their classes over at Northeastern.

And I really don't give a rat's ass that Harvard is trying to buy goodwill by providing financial assistance for vets. Much like Chris Rock said, "Don't brag that you take care of your kids, that's what you're SUPPOSED to do!" If Harvard wants credit for doing the right thing, ALLOW ROTC ON CAMPUS!

Posted by: MikeD at October 8, 2010 11:49 AM

MikeD,

If Harvard is bragging, they sure are doing a poor job of it. Mr. Reynolds sure seems to be conveniently unaware of what Harvard is doing.

Posted by: Craig at October 8, 2010 12:49 PM

Claiming that DADT is a bogus excuse does not make it so.

I'm not just claiming it's bogus, it *is* bogus. DADT is the Clinton-initiated policy that allows gays to serve without fear of being prosecuted under the law, and Harvard says it won't restore ROTC because the DADT policy *discriminates* against gays.

In fact, Harvard is allowing ROTC students to get the benefits of a Harvard education and a military commission...

So, by not refusing them permission to travel to MIT to attend classes and drills, Harvard is "allowing" them to get a military commission?

...and Harvard is providing financial assistance to veterans above and beyond what the GI Bill will pay for.

Good for Harvard. That makes them soooo much better than schools that *waive* veterans' tuition expenses above what the GI Bill covers, huh?

Have you run out of straw yet? You still refuse to address Reynolds' core point, which is that Harvard refuses to re-instated the ROTC program based on a specious line of reasoning -- IOW, bogus.

Posted by: BillT at October 8, 2010 01:09 PM

If Harvard is bragging, they sure are doing a poor job of it. Mr. Reynolds sure seems to be conveniently unaware of what Harvard is doing.

Again, that wasn't Reynolds' point -- and again, you keep ignoring that.

You made your first comment based solely on your interpretation of the article's header -- which you *admitted* -- and you're still making your comments based solely on that erroneous interpretation.

Posted by: BillT at October 8, 2010 01:18 PM

The GI Bill has changed so many times (almost always in a way that the vet gets less, pays more, or both ) that "you're wrong about the GI Bill" is a tautology. It did used to pay up to the state max, and there were squabbles about resident vs non-resident maximums. (Actually, it used to pay more than that, but that was before my time.) My parents (WW2 beneficiaries of that version of the GI Bill) were surprised at how little I got as a Vietnam Era vet, as I am of today's version.

Posted by: htom at October 8, 2010 01:24 PM

The GI Bill has changed so many times (almost always in a way that the vet gets less, pays more, or both ) that "you're wrong about the GI Bill" is a tautology.

The official site also has outdated and contradictory information in it -- the GIB morphs so frequently, even the people running it can't keep up.

Think of the GIB as a 401(k) with provisions that are firmly carved in Jell-O...

Posted by: BillT at October 8, 2010 02:26 PM

If Harvard is bragging, they sure are doing a poor job of it. Mr. Reynolds sure seems to be conveniently unaware of what Harvard is doing.

That's it? That's the response? I tell you they're effectively segregating ROTC students with this "separate but equal" crap, and you respond with "they're not really bragging"... Is it actually possible for you to pick a point to discuss and stick with it? Or is this conversation going to basically keep sliding all over the place?

Sigh... fine. You know what, Craig? This link's for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: MikeD at October 8, 2010 04:20 PM

Touche', Mike, that was perfect! So much so that I've added it to my Favorites list -- *On Account*.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at October 9, 2010 08:54 AM

To learn more ROTC advocacy in the Ivy League, go here: http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/

Posted by: Eric at October 10, 2010 12:17 AM

Eric,

According to your link, half of the Ivy League schools offer on-campus ROTC while the other half at least allow students to take ROTC classes off-campus.

I'd say that's pretty impressive, since there are only about 500 college ROTC programs offered nation-wide.

Also, 100% of Ivy League schools are participating in the Yellow Ribbon program this year whereas only 25% of the 4,400 colleges veterans attended last year participated, according to this link:

http://www.gijobs.com/blog.aspx?id=2030&blogid=143

Posted by: Craig at October 11, 2010 09:25 AM

Also, 100% of Ivy League schools are participating in the Yellow Ribbon program this year whereas only 25% of the 4,400 colleges veterans attended last year participated

Here's what your link says:

Some of the top universities in the nation, including Stanford, Princeton, Columbia and Harvard, will participate in the Yellow Ribbon program for the 2010-2011 school year – the second year of the program.

Show me *any* program with 100% participation in the first year, and your link says nothing about whether Harvard was a participant *last* year.

And you still haven't addressed Reynolds' point.

You keep repeating the same failed argument, hoping that something will change -- Google what Einstein had to say about that...

Posted by: BillT at October 11, 2010 01:49 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)