I read today that the Harvard University Student Handbook cautions students against joining the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) because "the program is inconsistent with Harvard's values."
I am speechless. Choking and appalled, I can barely respond civilly. Rationally, I can understand why someone might regard current ongoing conflicts as disastrously frivolous. I can understand why someone would judge the benefit of current conflicts as corrupt. I can especially understand why someone might regard the loss of life in current conflicts too much to bear. And I can even (barely) understand why someone might regard today's military as a not-entirely-unwilling tool of imperialist, contemptuous, grasping designs by a corrupt institution.
I vehemently disagree with all those perspectives. I think very nearly the opposite. But raised in an intellectual environment, I naturally assume that everybody with something to say has arrived at their opinion honestly--which is to say, if they view a current conflict negatively or view the military negatively, they've at least arrived at their conclusion through some desire to find truth and application of judgment (though I might find their desire and judgment warped and lacking, respectively).
It isn't just the intellectual environment that conditioned my naivety, however--it is the principle of free speech. The First Amendment to our Constitution explicitly protects an American's right to say and think what he or she wants. It's a question of freedom, and as a place encouraging the "free and open exchange of ideas" a university (such as Harvard) should be eager to protect such freedom by allowing students to come to their own conclusions about social institutions like the military.
But of course that is a matter of opinion. Pacifists are entitled to their opinions as well. Yet there is an aura of exceptionalism about premier universities; there is a tacit understanding by students, faculty, and administrators that a function of the institution is to produce good men and women to do good things in the world, armed with a store of knowledge and more importantly formed with the understanding that there is a right answer to most problems, and though it may not yet be known we collectively can figure it out. Is the right answer to the "military problem" to shut it out? I'm sure there are some Harvard community members who think so.
If that is a "value" of Harvard, well, bully for them. I have great respect for the long and illustrious intellectual history of that storied university, which (it must be said) have produced many warrior-scholars like Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. I think the strong intellectual and liberal traditions of Harvard might contribute strongly to our military, and that it's "exceptional" young alumni ought to go forth in obedience to their conscience, whether that be to AmeriCorps, the military, or the corporate world. I firmly believe that a good man or a good woman has much to contribute to any institution, provided that institution is well-meaning. And I can't understand why Harvard apparently has tarred the entire military with a wide brush of "misaligned values."
A cursory study of history shows that the American Military has done great things. Twice it has stopped German aggression, the latter of which took the awful form of Nazism in it's industrial ethnic genocide. It stopped the utter savagery and rapine of the Japanese Empire and it bled to keep desperate South Korea from crumbling under unwanted Communist Imperialism. Within those struggles good men and women have stepped forward to lead servicemembers in as near to civilized war-making as this world has ever seen--and incidents like My Lai and Abu Ghraib, inexcusable as they were, stand glaringly as aberrations. Actually, that comparison isn't quite fair, since My Lai was a genuine and horrible massacre while Abu Ghraib was just a sickening episode of bullying. These past nine years our Armed Forces have adjusted their tactics in a heroic effort to spare civilian lives, even when such course ran counter to sound military tactics (and they have paid the price in servicemembers' blood). I think there is little doubt for the disinterested observer that good men and women have served in the military, or that smart men and women have made it a better force for good in the world.
Furthermore, the reviled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexuals does not originate from the military, it was imposed by a liberal president. I don't see how anyone could fairly blame the military organization for that. If some servicemembers are prejudiced, well, that's bad...but it isn't illegal. Besides, what better place for a talented, well-formed young Harvard alumnus or alumnae to do some good in the world than in the midst of prejudice? That's chiefly, to my understanding, the result of ignorance, which is generally cured by education. And education is nominally the function of the university. In any case, it certainly isn't fair to assume that all servicemembers are prejudiced and damn the organization thereby.
Finally, I can't believe that Harvard would baldly dismiss an institution that counts among it's values "Honor," "Courage," "Commitment," "Service over self," or that explicitly encourages and rewards valor, hard work, and good leadership. It begs the question of what exactly the right values are, anyway. One would hope that Harvard's invitation of radical muslims does not indicate tacit approval of their values enshrined in Sharia law, which allows them to hang homosexuals, mutilate and stone women, and rape adolescent girls. Exactly what are Harvard's values now?
I certainly am biased in this matter. In five years of military service I have worked with the smartest, best people I've ever met--but I've also seen my share of bullies and bigots. Like any institution, the military has goods and bads. But I fail to see how Harvard can with any reason actually discourage it's students to seek a career therein. And to wholesale condemn the Armed Forces, these days comprised entirely of Americans who have promised to protect with their lives the Harvard community (along with the rest of the United States), is the height of ingratitude and indecency. Such a promise is no less valuable for the absence of a credible threat.
I understand that part of free speech and the free exchange of ideas is criticism. I welcome it mostly; how else would we collectively approve. So criticize, Harvard: criticize the military treatment of homosexuals, or the military tactics in the middle east, or even the military recruiting process. But don't dismiss it. We're Americans too, and we deserve better of what once was our greatest university.
