Harvard won't surrender its hypocrisy http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1164442&srvc=home&position=rated
By Michael Graham Thursday, April 9, 2009 Forty years ago today, Harvard University caved to pressure from violent student radicals and banned the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) from campus. The ban continues because Harvard finds the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy too offensive to be countenanced. In those same 40 years, Harvard has hosted at least one terrorist - Yassir Arafat - and the former president of Iran's terror-sponsoring regime. The latter, Mohammad Khatami, was asked to speak on the eve of 9/11. Current Harvard policy is to accommodate Muslim fundamentalists who demanded single-sex gym time in the name of Sharia law. They even choked down a $20 million donation from Saudi Sheik Alwaleed bin Talal, who had previously given millions to promote Palestinian suicide attacks. Yet accommodating ROTC is just too much for Harvard's delicate ethical constitution to bear? I was reminded of today's shameful anniversary by two Harvard seniors, Joseph Kristol and Daniel West, writing in the Wall Street Journal. These young men are scheduled to receive their Marine Corps commissions in June. Kristol and West write that Harvard's handbook "cautions students against joining ROTC, remarking that the program is 'inconsistent with Harvard's values.' " And when it comes to values, I always defer to the terrorist-welcoming, sexism-accommodating, blood-money recipients of old Cambridge. When I raised a fuss about Bill Ayers' recent (and, thankfully, rescinded) invitation to Boston College, liberals complained I was pro-censorship. "A college campus should welcome both diversity and controversy," one Ayers advocate told me. Well tell that to the 29 cadets and midshipmen of Harvard's non-existent ROTC. Not only are they forced to go to MIT for their ROTC training but, as Kristol and West point out, they must privately fund their off-campus course work. Harvard routinely pays for "future bankers taking accounting courses at MIT," for example. But not for the nation's future military leaders. Harvard claims that it's not military service that violates its values, but rather the military's policies regarding homosexuality. But how to reconcile this principled stand against U.S. "homophobia" from a university that welcomes leaders of regimes where homosexuals face persecution or even death? Or perhaps Harvard really believes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he says there are no gay Iranians? Any organization that can find room for an Arafat and Khatami - but not for a U.S. soldier - is simply embarrassing itself. Harvard's ROTC ban, along with its fight over on-campus recruiters, reflect the left's hostility toward the U.S. military. The only difference between the angry anti-war liberals of Ayers' youth and Harvard today is that Ayers was honest about his anti-military sentiments. When you're planting bombs at the Pentagon, you don't waste time on disingenuous claims of supporting the troops but opposing the mission. When Lts. Kristol and West leave Harvard, they'll be part of the fight against terrorists, pirates and (in Afghanistan) misogynistic homophobes. Forty years ago, when they dumped ROTC under threats of violence and arson, Harvard could at least claim the coward's defense. But what will Harvard's excuse be for refusing to support these young men and their service today? -- Michael Graham hosts a talk show on 96.9 WTKK. . --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sixties-L" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sixties-l?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
