A Report On Issues Associated with the Conflict Between The Policy of the Department of Defense About Gays and Lesbians in the Military And The Carnegie Mellon Statement of Assurance June 30, 1992 Introduction During this past year a Carnegie Mellon student was "disenrolled" from an ROTC unit because he informed the Commanding Officer that he was gay. Under the circumstances, the implementation of the policy of the Department of Defense required such an action. The Carnegie Mellon Statement of Assurance says that the University does not practice discrimination based upon sexual orientation. While causality is not claimed, following this disenrollment the Carnegie Mellon Student Senate passed a resolution which argued that this particular policy of the Defense Department is incompatible with the University's Statement of Assurance. The resolution also stated that the University ought to require that the policy be changed to one which does comply or else, after a deadline of a specific number of years, ROTC ought to cease having any association with Carnegie Mellon. Similar resolutions have been passed by Staff Council and the Graduate Student Organization. The Faculty Affairs Council of the Faculty Senate passed a resolution requesting the Chair to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to examine the situation and report to the Senate. The Chair acting with the consent of the Executive Committee requested that the Human Relations Commission investigate and report. President Mehrabian also made a similar request to the Commission. Plans The Commission decided that it should hold hearings and listen to all who volunteer to come forward. However, there should be an attempt to ensure that presentations are made by those with special knowledge and persons who are in a position to present the interests of those on the various sides of this controversy. Those who agreed to appear were asked to make a statement and then respond to questions from members of the Commission. There were two kinds of hearings. In the predominant form attendance by those who were neither presenters or members of the Commission was allowed, although the Commission did retain the right to limit attendance due to the size of available facilities as well as the desire to have a small enough group to facilitate work. In practice, no one who came to this kind of hearing was turned away. The second kind of meeting was an executive session where only members and those invited could attend. A limited number of such sessions was necessary to protect those who might otherwise feel constrained in stating their views. Those who made statements and participated in discussion included some members of CMU Out, the commanding officers of two of the three ROTC programs, three students participating in the NROTC program, the disenrolled student, representatives of those organizations which passed resolutions -- Student Senate, Staff Council, the Graduate Student Organization, the Faculty Affairs Council -- and the Associate Vice President for Financial Resources. Statement The Commission believes that the Carnegie Mellon Statement of Assurance is appropriate, important, and that it incorporates a very desirable set of principles. These principles ought to govern the policies of the University and guide the behaviors of those of us associated with it. An atmosphere of tolerance for each other and nondiscrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national or ethnic origin, handicap, or status as a veteran is a critical characteristic for an educational institution. It is very important that we have a University where judgments about admission, education, and personnel evaluations are based upon qualifications, merit and performance rather than personal attributes or convictions not related to academic or job performance, such as political views, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or happenstance of birth. At the same time it is necessary to recognize and understand that the University is an institution which coexists with other institutions in our society, and all of these may not share fully our values and views. In addition, the University receives support from some subset of these and other institutions. Major Conclusions Based upon our hearings and upon other information that was received, the Commission has come to some conclusions. 1. It can be argued that the manner in which the ROTC programs are administered avoids the possibility of a conflict between the policy of the Defense Department and the University's Statement of Assurance. The major elements of this argument include the fact that ROTC scholarships are awarded prior to enrollment and commissions are granted after completion of the educational program, so technically the University is not involved in any disqualification of gays and lesbians from the military services. The Commission does not accept this argument. We believe that the University is too heavily involved, as is argued below, to maintain such a fine distinction. The programs have to be viewed at least partially as our own. 2. The University supports NROTC by providing space and other facilities, by providing non military staff support, by dutifully recording grades and associated information on the transcripts of all of our students who elect to enroll in ROTC courses, as well as by awarding titles and providing other services. Hence, because of our involvement, as well as because of our own moral views about the nature of our society, the Commission concludes that the University has no option but to be concerned about the policy of the Defense Department to exclude gays and lesbians from those who seek to join the military by participating in the supported educational programs at our Institution. Further, we believe that this policy is in conflict with our Statement of Assurance. 3. Approximately 200 students at Carnegie Mellon obtain financial support by participating in these programs. The information available to the Commission has made it very clear that many of these students would not be attending the University without this support. 4. If all ROTC programs were removed from our Campus, there would be an impact from the associated withdrawal of more than $ 2,500,000 per year in tuition and fees alone. It might be possible for the University to replace these students. Such an effort would mean a large cost in terms of increased financial aid from CMU. If the quality of our students is maintained, we estimate that such an action would require a minimum of $ 575,000 to be added to our financial aid budget, and this number could easily turn out to be larger. Additional Findings The Commission explored many issues and came to a number of conclusions in addition to the above ones. Some of these may be worthy of pointing out here. 1. With some few exceptions, such as instances where a summer of service may be a prerequisite, ROTC courses can be taken by any CMU student, but if there is an effective space limitation scholarship students must have preference. We did not find an instance of any student being turned away, but neither did we find other than a few non-scholarship students enrolling in these courses. 2. All ROTC courses are recorded on transcripts, but present practice at CMU does not include these courses in those required for graduation or in the calculation of the QPA. 3. A formal contract governs the relationship between the University and all ROTC programs. Other Considerations In its deliberations, the Commission has been guided by a desire to serve our University as well as our wider society, and we have tried to avoid proposals that bring the possibility of inflicting harm when there does not appear to be a good chance of compensating gain. In this spirit we note the following points. 1. There is a desire on the part of those Admirals and other officers who administer the overall NROTC program, and probably the Generals who administer the others also, to limit the number of students who have both won scholarships and choose to attend "high tuition" universities. This desire reflects the need on part of the military to control program costs. 2. The members of the Commission, on the other hand, believe that the Nation's military services are better off by having in the officer corps graduates of these high tuition universities such as Carnegie Mellon. Basic Starting Point The Commission strongly supports our Statement of Assurance and the ideals incorporated therein. We propose a set of actions and ideas which we believe, taken together, will have a reasonable chance of getting our Institution and our society closer to the actual achievement of those ideals than we have accomplished to date. Actions Already Decided The Commission would like to point out that some steps have been taken or are in process which are relevant to this issue. 1. One of the Officers of the University has been sending letters to our federal executive and political leaders urging a change of policy about gays and lesbians in the military. 2. The University is unilaterally ceasing the practice of using Carnegie Mellon aid to attract students who have been awarded ROTC scholarships. Immediate Attention The Commission believes that there are at least two steps which the University can take immediately which can improve the existing situation. We can be more truthful and honest in our descriptions about where we are and where we stand, and we can take steps to support existing students who might find themselves in difficult situations. 1. The Carnegie Mellon Statement of Assurance must be amended, not to weaken it which would be wrong, but to recognize that ROTC programs do not comply with it. We propose simply adding this observation to our Statement and inserting relevant comments at the appropriate places in our catalogues and other material. 2. The University ought to establish a recognized support program for those students who are enrolled in any of the ROTC programs and who believe that they may be in any danger of being disenrolled. This program ought to include both counseling and alternative financial aid components. The latter should conform to the existing or standing policies of the University governing such aid. Joint Action The Commission believes that it is unreasonable to ask the University to take individual actions which have no chance of benefitting the Institution itself, those associated with it, or our wider society and at the same time pose substantial risk of damage. This point is especially important when there are alternatives which ought to be explored which have a greater chance for success and carry less risk. 1. The University is urged to take a lead role in getting the AAU universities, or some other appropriate group, to lobby both the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government to re-examine and change this policy of our Defense Department. 2. The Commission recognizes that the University, and especially Legal Affairs, has been working in this direction, but we think that the effort ought to be greatly intensified and alliances ought to be made with additional groups such as the Land Grant Universities. Proposed Conference The Commission believes that the Defense Department policy was formulated without a solid empirical basis. Our view is that careful studies, and especially empirical investigations, would lead to a conclusion which is at odds with present policy. If our view is correct, there ought to be an opportunity for constructive action. 1. Carnegie Mellon should explore the hosting or holding of a national conference in Washington, jointly with those identified above or other appropriate institutions, to examine the issue of gays and lesbians in the military and the basis of present policy. 2. This conference should have several dimensions, but it ought to include any existing historical evidence going back as far as possible, psychological evidence including mental stereotypes which are often more powerful than reality, behavioral evidence relating to the effectiveness of individuals and organizations when groups include lesbians and gays, and the evaluation of alternatives to the present policy. 3. If at all possible, this conference ought to include those with academic, military and political backgrounds including some of our present national leadership. Continuance The Human Relations Commission promises that we are not finished with this issue and will revisit it in regard to our own campus no later than the fall of 1994 unless it has been satisfactorily resolved prior to that time. Specifically, we propose to evaluate at that time whether any progress has been made, and a consideration of recommending termination of CMU's ROTC contracts if the Commission judges that there has been no progress. Additional Observations Although the Commission's assignment was the policy of the Defense Department about gays and lesbians in the military as this policy relates to our own campus, we have obviously chosen to interpret our mandate broadly. Further, we would be remiss not to mention that we have noted other possible conflicts between our Statement of Assurance and practices of the military in regard to ROTC. These often include what is called requirements or qualifications, which can be fine in principle if they are related to possibilities of job performance. However, the relationship between some of these requirements and the needs of the variety of jobs which are available in the military services is not at all obvious to us. 1. There are broad requirements about age and handicap which may be relevant for some tasks but unrelated to others which are performed in the military. 2. There appears to be a limit, or a quota, on the numbers or percentage of women who may be enrolled in ROTC. Perhaps such a limit is well justified, but we are not convinced. It seems appropriate to point out here that in accordance with standard practice the University had to assure the Department of Defense that we (The University) do not discriminate on the basis of sex, age, and handicap as a prior condition for our contract for NROTC. Yet, in carrying out the contract -- in the awarding of scholarships for a university education and commissions upon graduation -- there seem to be requirements or quotas which appear to us to amount to discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and handicap. Ought not our own government abide by the same standards, rules and regulations which it enforces upon the other institutions in our society? Conclusion For Carnegie Mellon it seems to us to be of great importance that we establish and maintain an environment of tolerance for each other and that there not be discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, national or ethnic origin, handicap, or status as a veteran. Such an atmosphere is important for our educational mission. We have to be serious about our Statement of Assurance. We must have a University where judgments about admission, education and personnel evaluations are based upon qualifications, merit, and performance rather than personal attributes or convictions not related to academic or job performance. We believe that our government, our Department of Defense, ought to abide by these standards, attempt to be nondiscriminatory along these same dimensions, and we pledge our efforts to work as indicated above to try to see that this is accomplished. \enddata{text, 1984935764}