From: halperin@Athena.MIT.EDU To: Scott.Safier@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU Subject: Re: rotc Date: Thu, 06 Feb 92 02:26:14 EST Correct, the Trustees of MIT have never made a formal decision on the issue, and their permission is necessary to remove ROTC. However, the President of MIT has at least briefed them on his stand, and the Chairman of the Board said, at the faculty meeting at which the faculty approved the resolution, that he thought the resolution was constructive. Officially, then, there is no division within the administration on MIT's stand. Of course, the Provost did appoint one of the most cautious members of the ROTC committee (a closet case, wouldn't you know it?) to head the committee that's supposed to get other schools together to lobby to change the policy, and I didn't even know about that committee till I read about it in the campus newspaper--even though I was the one who had brought the whole thing up to begin with. So that tells you something about MIT's resolve. I'll send you a copy of the resolution but I need your snail-mail address. Thanks for the info! All the best, David Return-Path: jbmelvin@Athena.MIT.EDU Return-Path: Received: from Athena.MIT.EDU by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB31); id AA20055; Fri, 7 Feb 92 18:32:00 EST for buckmr Received: from M11-116-3.MIT.EDU by Athena.MIT.EDU with SMTP id AA10772; Fri, 7 Feb 92 18:31:26 EST From: jbmelvin@Athena.MIT.EDU Received: by M11-116-3.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id AA03315; Fri, 7 Feb 92 18:31:19 -0500 Message-Id: <9202072331.AA03315@M11-116-3.MIT.EDU> To: scotts+@ri.cmu.edu Cc: buckmr@rpi.edu, rlloyd@Athena.MIT.EDU, mtscoop@Athena.MIT.EDU, halperin@Athena.MIT.EDU Subject: ROTC at MIT: here's the story Date: Fri, 07 Feb 92 18:31:16 EST Hi Scott, My name is Joe Melvin and I am one of two student members of the MIT President's advisory committee on ROTC. The function of the committee is to advise the President on policy issues as they relate to ROTC at MIT - as well as to our "crosstown" arrangements with Harvard, Tufts and Wellesely - and to deal with the day-to-day administrative concerns of the three ROTC commanders (army, navy, air force) and the Institute administration. My function on the committee is to act as the non-ROTC student advocate (my student cohort on ROTCcom is a Navy cadet). It may be of interest to you that I am indeed gay. Let me give you a brief and somewhat sketchy history of ROTC at MIT as it pertains to the DOD policy: Prior to 1989 the committee was practically dormant. It met once a year, maybe twice, for a token meeting to deal with the occasional administrative matter that couldn't be handled by one of the assistant deans for undergraduate education. The banquet of free food was the main draw of the members to the meeting. Around late 1989, a committee headed by an MIT Prof named Vandiver published a report that gave a comprehensive overview of the ROTC program at MIT. The report outlined several areas that the committee members felt warranted a good looking-into. One of these was the policy issue. However, there was not much immediate response by the faculty or administration to the report, except to stamp it "confidential" and try to keep it a secret. No sooner had the ink on the stamp dried than everyone and his dog acquired a copy of it. Now, in the spring of 1990, the shit hit the fan. Robb Bettiker, a senior and cadet in the Navy ROTC program, had come out to his CO the previous fall. He was of course immediately removed from the program. This wasn't a big deal, however, since several similar episodes had happened in years past - affecting only the raising of a few students' eyebrows and the wringing of a few administrators' hands. The big shock - and the catalyst for the turmoil which ensued - was the Department of the Navy's request (i.e. demand) that Bettiker repay the government all of the money it had spent on his schooling until that time, some $38,000. The student press ran with it. A student group called Defeat Discrimination at MIT (DDAMIT) which had actually been formed shortly before the "Incident" (as it's now referred to in committee meetings) swelled with throngs of angry students demanding that the administration do something. That "something" evolved into a proposal that after a 5 year period of MIT doing its darn'dest to change things at the pentagon, if the policy still existed in 1995, all entering Frosh beginning with the class of 1999 would be denied access to the ROTC program. Then-Provost John Duetch, a big-wig in military-academic circles, agreed after speaking with the faculty advisor to DDAMIT, literature Professor David Halperin, to pen a personal letter to Dick Cheney. That now-famous "Dear Dick" letter caught the eye of the national press, culminating in Robb's spot on NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw. Just before the taping of the spot, Robb learned that after "reviewing" his case, the DOD dropped its request. At its May meeting, the faculty gave a charge to the suddenly revived ROTC committee to review the situation and come up with some proposal to resolve it. The committee (onto which I had managed to get myself appointed when the whole mess was brewing) had already been working to find a respectable position on the matter that the faculty and administration should take. Then, at the worst possible time, the summer came. Once fall rolled around, many students were less zealous about the whole affair and many faculty and administration hoped that the entire ugly scene would blow over. DDAMIT hardcores still persisted though. The committee did too. Finally, in October 1990, a compromise was reached between the committee and what was left of DDAMIT. The motion was placed before the faculty in their October meeting and it was passed unanimously (with two abstentions) in voice vote. I shall quote the relevant parts: "We, the Faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, responding to the conflict between the DoD and MIT policies regarding discrimination with regard to sexual orientation, request: [1 and 2 aren't terribly interesting] 3) that the administration develop and undertake a five year program by MIT individually and in collaboration with other schools to work for reversal of DoD policy 4) that a task force be established by the President near the end of the five year period to evaluate progress and to recommend a future course of action, with the expectation that inadequate progress toward eliminating the DoD policy on sexual orientation will result in: i) making ROTC unavailable to students beginning with the class entering in 1998 ii) giving notice of the impending termination in all appropriate MIT publications beginning no later than the fall of 1996, should it be decided that ROTC is to be unavailable at MIT." The resolution received explicit endorsement from the President, the Provost and the Chairman of the Corporation. Whew. Now, I shall turn to your particular dilemma. You stated that an administrator at your school heard from a "trustee" that MIT had taken no particular stance on the issue. First, a point of clarification. MIT refers to its governing body as "the Corporation." This is what other schools refer to as a "Board of Trustees." The Corporation has around 100 members. However, the *real* decisions are made by the Executive Committee of the Corporation which has among its ~10 members the President and the Provost, and is headed by the Chairman of the Corporation. All power for broad policy changes is vested in the Corporation ExecCom. Note that both the Provost and the President report to the Chairman, thus making the Chairman one promotion shy of God the Father in terms of real political power. It is likely that your administrator spoke to one of the extra-EcecCom members of the Corporation - many of whom are not remarkably in tune with some affairs of the Institute. It is very significant that the Chairman himself (a short portly gentleman named Paul Gray) stated his explicit support of the resolution. Understand that this resolution was passed by the FACULTY, not the CORPORATION. The Faculty does not have the final word in this matter, but its united show of support was very powerful. Recent events at MIT have stalled any serious efforts to change the policy. First of all, we inagurated a new President shortly after the resolution was passed and his settling-in took some time. Then, if you've been reading your newspaper, you will know that MIT is in hot water with the government right now because of an overly-zealous Democrat from Michigan named John "the Ivy buster" Dingell. No one here at the moment is anxious to strain Cambridge-DC ties further with talk of ROTC expulsion. In closing (finally), I have the following advice. Confront your pious administrator and query him as to his "trustee" source. Inform him of the faculty's united and firm stand on the matter and of the Corporation Chairman's explicit support of their resolution. Even though the Corporation hasn't taken such a firm stand as the Faculty, Paul Gray's comments at the meeting give some indication of Corporation attitude. Lastly, even though our administration has its hands full with with the government hearings right now, most highly placed officials (especially the new President) are sympathetic to our cause in spirit if not, for the moment, action. I would be happy to help you further in any way I can. My apologies for the verbosity of this response, but I tried not to leave anything out. You can reach me at Joe Melvin jbmelvin@athena.mit.edu (617)225-6669 Good Luck.