WHEN I was younger, it seemed like everyone in my neighborhood was a member of the local country club except my family. I asked my mom about why we weren't members, and she told me "since the Thomas' can't join, we won't join the club either." The Thomas' were the only black family in the neighborhood and were excluded from the club because of their race. Although nothing in the country club policy explicitly said "no blacks allowed," everyone knew they couldn't join anyway. The University should take the same principled stance my mother did and not allow organizations on Grounds to exclude certain groups of people because of irrelevant factors.
|
The different ROTC programs are excellent organizations that have provided leadership opportunities to many students in order to help them prepare for a future in the armed forces. In addition to providing excellent leadership opportunities, ROTC also offers generous scholarships to students. Many students who would be unable to attend college join ROTC to help pay for tuition. These resources provided by ROTC are indeed significant. The talented students currently in the organization deserve to be commended, as it is undeniably difficult to balance schoolwork and rigorous ROTC commitments. However, because the national ROTC policy does not permit gay and lesbian students to join the organization, ROTC must not be permitted to operate on Grounds.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring openly gay and lesbian individuals from joining the service is inconsistent with the ideals the University upholds. Though the University has made mistakes regarding excluded groups of individuals in the past, it should work to ensure that similar errors do not continue in the future. The University was wrong when it didn't permit blacks to attend. It was wrong not to let women attend. And now the University is committing an injustice to another marginalized group by denying them the right to join a University-sponsored and student-supported organization.
Although the University's non-discrimination policy -- available on its Web site and included in admissions applications -- clearly states that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited, ROTC continues to operate. It's shocking that the University would publish such an unequivocal non-discrimination statement, yet knowingly allow an organization to discriminate. It's also frightening to realize that the non-discrimination policy is so fragile.
The vulnerability of the policy raises a myriad of questions: Is it a worthless document the administration thought up so they could be viewed as politically correct in the world of academia? Can some organizations violate the non-discrimination policy, while others can't? What if ROTC decided to discriminate on the basis of race? Or gender?
By permitting ROTC to operate on Grounds, the University is issuing a tacit approval of their discriminatory policy. If the University supports -- implicitly or explicitly -- this discriminatory policy, they should save paper and not include sexual orientation in the non-discrimination policy at all.
But if the University wants to take a principled stand against discrimination, it should act pro-actively to right a very clear wrong.
Other universities across the country have removed ROTC from their campuses because of non-discrimination policy conflicts. Harvard University removed ROTC from operating on its campus in 1994. In 1990, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a task force to investigate the future of ROTC on their campus. Rather than removing the organization, MIT decided to work with the ROTC to help develop a more feasible policy. Until a final policy is reached, MIT has promised to pay for any scholarship money a student loses after being dismissed on the basis of sexual orientation.
Several options are available to the University that can resolve this blatant non-discrimination policy conflict. The administration can take the morally reprehensible step of amending the non-discrimination policy to exclude sexual orientation. Or the University can stand up for its ideals and remove the ROTC entirely from Grounds. The University should follow MIT's principled lead and assure to gay and lesbian ROTC members that their financial livelihood is not at stake.
Like MIT, University President John Casteen III and the Board of Visitors should assure these individuals that the money promised to them by the ROTC is not in jeopardy if their sexuality becomes known. By doing this, we not only stand up for our principled beliefs but also permit other students to benefit from what ROTC has to offer.
(Andrew E. Borchini is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
