xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19979999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00078
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 5, no. 9 (March 21, 1997).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c March 21, 1997
History of the Reserve Officer Training Corps among the Association of American Universities from 1982 to 1992 : review of institutional responses to ROTC policy regarding homosexuals / Lee S. Duemer.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 5issue 9series Year mods:caption 19971997Month March3Day 2121mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1997-03-21
1 of 19 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 5 Number 9March 21, 1997ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Education Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1997, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.The History of the Reserve Officer Training Corps Among the Association of American Universities from 1982 to 1992: Review of Institutional Responses to ROTC Policy Regarding Homosexuals Lee S. Duemer Averett CollegeAbstract This is a policy analysis, in a historical context, of how Association of American University institutions responded to Reserve Office r Training Corps policy excluding homosexuals. The time period for this stu dy is 1982 to 1992. Qualitative methods are used to analyze data and arrive at conc lusions. Secondary data provide additional depth and background. This study reveals seven different positions institutions have taken in response to ROTC policy, these include: supporting ROTC policy, neutrality, collective action, barring military recruiters from campus, distancing the institution from ROTC, and changing the campus climate. This includes examples taken from AAU institutions and r ationales behind making policy decisions. The purpose of this article is to develop a typolo gy of institutional responses to Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) policy regarding homo sexuals, derived from the published responses of institutions composing the Association of American Universities (AAU). This will help in developing an understanding for those in hi gher education and the ROTC about a critical period in the history of this subject and how insti tutions responded to the conflict. While much has been written about specific institu tions and their responses to this issue,
2 of 19there has not been a comparative study examining th e range of responses institutions have taken. This is important to higher education scholars, edu cational administrators and ROTC unit commanders, in order to develop a comparative under standing of how institutions responded to ROTC policy regarding homosexuals. AAU institutions were selected as the focus of thi s study because of their prominence in American higher education. These institutions frequ ently encounter controversial issues before smaller colleges and universities, consequently, ot her institutions look to these flagship universities for guidance and instructions in how t o deal with controversy when it develops. The 1982 point of departure was chosen, as on Janu ary 28 of that year, Department of Defense (DoD) policy regarding homosexuals was revi sed in order to eliminate loopholes which allowed the admission and retention of homosexuals in the military. Under previous law, in existence since 1943, homosexual acts such as sodom y were considered illegal and punishable by imprisonment, however, whether the person was ho mosexual or not made no difference, the act was the focus of the law rather than the sexual identity of the individual (Berube, 1990). An individual caught in a homosexual act could avoid r emoval or imprisonment by claiming the act was an aberration, that they were not actually homo sexual. In general, a homosexual was not subject to removal from the military so long as tha t person did not engage in homosexual acts. The 1982 law eliminated this loophole so that simp ly admitting homosexuality, apart from homosexual activity, was ground for removal. T he sexual identity of the individual, regardless of their actual behavior became the focu s of the law. The year 1992 is chosen as the closure for this study because of the Don t ask, do n t tell compromise developed that year by the Clinton administration. Under the 1982 policy, homosexuals were prohibited from joining or serving in any branch of the military. This included ROTC branches of the Army, Navy and Air Force. According to DoD policy, a ROTC cadet could be remo ved from the Corps for engaging in, attempting to engage in, or soliciting another memb er to engage in homosexual acts; for stating one is homosexual or bisexual; or for marrying or a ttempting to marry one of the same sex. This process of removal was referred to as "disenrollmen t" (Clark, 1990; Gross, 1990). Because this was the official DoD policy, its enforcement in all branches of the armed forces and their ROTC units was mandatory. This policy was in direct conflict with many insti tutional non-discrimination statements, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex ual orientation. Consequently, the ROTC partnership with higher education became a source o f friction on university campuses across the country. Institutions forming the AAU responded in a range of means, this included openly supporting ROTC, neutrality, collective action to c ompel the DoD to change its policy, banning military recruiters, organizing the removal of ROTC from campus, distancing the institution from ROTC, and finally, changing the university env ironment.ROTC Policy Regarding Homosexuals from 1982 to 1992 Department of Defense policy, formalized in Direct ive 1332.14 Section (1) (H), banned homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. The p olicy on homosexuality stated: Homosexuality is incompatible with military service The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homos exual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engag e in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the militar y mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the milita ry services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster the mutual trust and confidence among the servicemembers; to ensure the integrity of the syst ems of rank and command; to
3 of 19facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of s ervicemembers who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members to the Military Services; to maintai n the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of securi ty. ROTC cadets who revealed that they committed homose xual acts, attempted to commit homosexual acts, or stated that they intended or de sired to commit homosexual acts, or were discovered to be homosexual were discharged from th e ROTC and technically required to reimburse the ROTC for cost of their education, alt hough this was rarely done (Kosova, 1990).Institutional Responses to ROTC PolicySupportive Responses Some administrators saw no conflict between the ex clusionary policies of the ROTC and institutional non-discrimination policies (J.G. Kry way, personal communication, August 28, 1990; R.E. Jallette, personal communication, Septem ber 4, 1990). In some instances these supportive positions were publicly expressed, howev er, in other cases administrators have publicly responded negatively to the exclusion of h omosexuals while privately affirming support for ROTC to their unit commander (R.E. Jallette, pe rsonal communication September 4, 1990; J.G. Kryway, personal communication, August 28, 199 0; J.J. Petrick, personal communication, August 29, 1990). One example of this was at Indiana University. In August 1990, a new Code of Ethics went into effect, which included a Sexual Orientati on Clause, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (J.G Kryway, personal c ommunication, August 28, 1990). The president of the university stated that he supporte d the new institutional Code of Ethics but saw no conflict between it and ROTC practices (J.G. Kry way, personal communication, August 28, 1990). An August 1990 memorandum from the ROTC unit comma nder at Johns Hopkins University stated that the president of the univers ity advocated the continued presence of ROTC on campus (R.E. Jalette, personal communication, Au gust 4, 1990). This statement was made in spite of the fact that ROTC and the university had conflicting policies with respect to institutional policy and sexual orientation. The pr esident informed his unit commander that while he may be required by the board of trustees t o take action requesting the DoD to change their policy, he "can live with conflict" (R.E. Jal ette, personal communication, August 4, 1990). This was also the case when in May 1990, the Board of Regents at the University of Minnesota unanimously voted to require the university preside nt, Nils Hasselmo, to write to the Secretary of Defense requesting that the existing military po licy be changed. The President privately informed the ROTC Commander and Professors of Milit ary Science that he would continue to abide by the existing DoD policy (M.D. Trout, perso nal communication, August 30, 1990). To justify their support for ROTC, administrators cited its benefits to the nation. Seventy percent of the officers in the Army received their education at America's colleges and universities courtesy of the ROTC, including former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, who received his undergraduat e education through the ROTC at the City Colleges of New York (Shelton, 1985; Card and Elder 1989; Kosova, 1990). This was and continues to be a significant point in light of the fact that this percentage is expected to remain unchanged if not expand as the government has made no efforts to increase the size of the military academies or promote large numbers of enli sted personnel into the officer corps (Malpass, 1985). As competition for students increased, administrat ors also indicated the importance of a
4 of 19close partnership between ROTC and higher education in order to attract capable students (Malpass, 1985; Jaschik, 1993). While there were re gional variances in the rate of enrollment decline, an effective ROTC program could help allev iate the problem (Malpass, 1985; Jaschik, 1993). In 1990 ROTC brought approximately $2 millio n to the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the form of scholarships and salaries (K osova, 1990). It is important, however, to point out that these positions were formulated without primary regard for the value of the program in its own right, rather, its excellence was derived from the fact that it served as a means to an end. This end was financial, in the form of academically qualified students with scholarships, and a positive relationship with the government in order to maintain and attract funding for research (Malpass, 1985; Kosova, 1990). At the University of Kansas, Chancellor Gene Budig refused to implement a faculty resolution addressing the issue of ROTC excluding h omosexuals (Swartz, 1990). In May 1990, the University Senate, composed of 52 elected facul ty, students and staff, passed a resolution prohibiting the ROTC from conducting ROTC officer c ommissioning ceremonies on university property or involving university personnel in those ceremonies (Fagan, 1990; Swartz, 1990). ROTC commissioning ceremonies were traditionally he ld every spring before commencement (Swartz, 1990). However, the Chancellor, also a Gen eral in the Air National Guard, rejected the resolution (Swartz, 1990). His approval would have been necessary to make it university policy (Fagan, 1990). Neutrality Institutions also responded neutrally to the issue of the ROTC and its policy of exclusion. Among the reasons cited were avoidance to involve t he institution in a purely political issue, the benefits of ROTC to the institution with respect to student enrollment, and reluctance to interfere with positive and profitable government r elations (Malpass, 1985; Trow, 1987; Kosova, 1990; Jaschik, 1993). This position was largely grounded in the notion t hat it was improper to take a moral position on what may be a strictly political issue in which people can disagree in a moral forum (Trow, 1987). By transforming a political issue int o a moral one and then taking sides while subsequently asserting the moral superiority of tha t side, it would become difficult to subordinate one's self to the common interest, the advancement and welfare of the institution (Trow, 1987). This type of political interference i s what the former President of Harvard University, Derek Bok, referred to when he insisted that "universities have neither the mandate nor the competence to administer foreign policy, se t our social and economic priorities, enforce standards of conduct in the society, or carry out o ther social functions apart from learning and discovery" (Trow, 1987). This statement was paralleled by D. Bruce Johnston e, Chancellor of the SUNY system, who affirmed that in order for members of the highe r education community to benefit from freedom of political interference, the price they h ave to pay is for institutions themselves not to become involved in political issues (Blumenstyk, 19 91). This position argued that it is the politically neutral atmosphere of the university, w hich attracts people of diverse and varying points of view without the fear that their ideas or beliefs will be unfairly attacked (Trow, 1987; Blumenstyk, 1991). A political stance would deny th e right of people with diverse political values to come together in a nonpolitical environ ment to pursue other interests together, such as education, without regard to political differenc es (Trow, 1987). Another reason some university administrators rema ined neutral is that taking the initiative with the ROTC put universities in a very uncomfortable position (Jaschik, 1993). According to the Assistant Chancellor for Legal Aff airs at the University of California-Berkeley, Michael R. Smith, they would much rather have waite d for the courts to address the controversy than for them to have had to take the awkward posit ion of informing the DoD that it was wrong in its exclusionary policy (Fields, 1984b).
5 of 19 This was especially an issue for administrators at AAU institutions, who were hesitant to criticize the ROTC because of the millions of dolla rs in research grants that could have been placed at risk from negative relations with the DoD (Kosova, 1990). For administrators at the nation's major research institutions, this represen ted a financial decision, in which removal of the ROTC from a campus could have had a detrimental influence on securing federal funding for lucrative defense research (Kosova, 1990).Collective Action Significant in initiating collective action were t wo Pentagon research reports prepared by the Personnel Security Research and Education Cente r (PERSEREC) in Monterey, California. Still classified, draft copies of these were releas ed to members of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee. The reports found no corr elation between homosexuality and evidence of security risk suitability, no evidence that homosexuals were a disruptive element in the armed forces, and finally urged their retention and expressed that the armed forces should consider admitting them (University of Pittsburgh R OTC Report, 1990). They reported that "homosexual men and women as a group are not differ ent from heterosexual men and women in regard to adjustment criteria or job performance" ( Card and Elder, 1989). The conclusions suggested that the armed forces should consider tre ating homosexuals as a non-ethnic minority as opposed to a form of deviancy or as criminals an d recommended integrating open homosexuals into the military based on how AfricanAmericans were integrated under Harry S. Truman (University of Pittsburgh ROTC Report, 1990) In April 1990, less than one year after the releas e of the drafts of the two PERSEREC Reports, the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney rece ived a letter from John M. Deutch, Provost of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Clark 1990; Gross, 1990; Michaud, 1990). The letter by Mr. Deutch, a long-time Pentagon advisor, was a summary of points made by academics, highlighting the contradiction between t he university principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation a nd the presence of an ROTC which discriminates, adding that the presence of an ROTC which does discriminate cannot exist indefinitely (Gross, 1990; Maca, 1990). Though he m ade no specific details or deadlines, Mr. Deutch stated that because of ROTC policy, the risk was present that colleges and universities could withdraw from ROTC (Clark, 1990; Gross, 1990) He also cautioned Secretary Cheney that failure to reverse the ban would make it easy for dedicated opponents of the defense establishment to further their cause during a time of increasing calls for cutbacks in defense appropriations (Gross, 1990). At the same time, an ROTC Advisory Committee at MI T was looking into the matter and arrived at the conclusion that it would require a l ong term commitment with collective action, and a time frame of three to fours years to phase o ut ROTC without harming students already enrolled in the program (Maca, 1990). Under this po sition, collective action would take place with the four higher education associations, the Am erican Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (Maca, 1990). The President of MIT, writing to the Undergraduate Association stated that: Both the Provost and I are troubled by the contradi ction between MIT's policy of non-discrimination and the ROTC policy of discrimin ation on the basis of sexual preference, and we believe this ROTC policy should change...I believe that the military services not only should, but will, change their policies regarding sexual preference and ROTC programs, because the continuat ion of ROTC programs at
6 of 19leading colleges and universities will be greatly i nfluenced by this question (Maca, 1990). The MIT Dean of Undergraduate Education, overseeing the ROTC program, found this policy difference between the DoD and MIT to be "deeply tr oubling" (Maca, 1990). At the same time as the efforts to address this pro blem at MIT, Kenneth A. Shaw, President of the University of Wisconsin System, in troduced a resolution at an April, 1990 Association of American Universities meeting, oppos ing ROTC policy regarding homosexuals (Collinson, 1990b). The following month, the presid ents of the four groups representing nearly all the nations colleges and universities hand deli vered a letter to the DoD, which expressed serious concern and urged Secretary Cheney to chang e the DoD policy of barring homosexuals from the ROTC (Clark, 1990; Michaud, 1990). The let ter stated that this policy was at odds with university affirmative action programs which prohib ited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (Collinson, 1990b). The letter was prepared and signed by Robert H. At well of the American Council on Education, Robert M. Rosenzweig of the Association of American Universities, Allan W. Ostar of the American Association of State Colleges and U niversities and Robert L. Clodius of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (Clark, 1990). The letter stated that the policy on homosexuals dated from th e days of discrimination against blacks and other minorities. The letter further questioned the "curious anomaly" of discrimination based on sexual orientation, stating that "sexual orientatio n is the only basis in which discrimination is condoned within ROTC" and that other forms of "deni al of equal opportunity on the grounds of race, gender, religion, nationality or political af filiation (have) long since been barred" (Collinson, 1990b). The letter stated that if this policy continued, the ROTC would lose not only the leadership of qualified homosexual cadets but a lso the support of the population who find discrimination intolerable in any form (Collinson, 1990b). The four presidents also requested a meeting with Secretary Cheney to discuss the issue (Michaud, 1990). In late June of 1990, they received a reply from S ecretary Cheney's office notifying them that "we do not plan to reassess the Defense Depart ment's policy" and "that a meeting with the Secretary to discuss the issue would not be product ive at this time" (Clark, 1990; Dodge, 1990). The letter also stated that there was no reason for the DoD to review the policy as up to that time they had won every court case on the issue (Michlau d, 1990). This led to a series of letters written by AAU ins titution heads to the Secretary of Defense. In May 1990, the president of the Universi ty of Pennsylvania sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense, urging a change in policy con cerning homosexuals (R.C. Miner, personal communication, August 30, 1990). This letter was wr itten in response to a University Council resolution adopted that same month, which stipulate d the suspension of the ROTC program by June of 1993 unless the DoD changed its policy (R.C Miner, personal communication, August 30, 1990). In June of 1990, the President of the Un iversity of Oregon sent a letter to Secretary Cheney and Oregon U.S. Representatives seeking supp ort for "changing the military's policy of discrimination" (Smith, 1990). In 1990, the preside nts of Rutgers University and Indiana University also joined in calling formally with oth er AAU institution presidents for an end to ROTC policy (J.G. Kryway, personal communication, A ugust 28, 1990; B.R. Maca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). At the Universit y of Minnesota, the Board of Regents passed a resolution in May 1990, stating that ROTC was at odds with the university policy of non-discrimination and urged the President, Nils Ha sselmo, to lobby Congress to change the policy (Collinson, 1990b; McNaron, 1991). In June 1990, the President of Washington State Un iversity, who also served as a member of the Army ROTC Advisory Panel on ROTC Affa irs, requested that Secretary Cheney modify the existing DoD policy (C.L. Pullman, perso nal communication, August 31, 1990). Mr.
7 of 19Smith considered the existing ROTC policy to be in direct conflict with a State Executive Order for the State of Washington, which mandated an end to discrimination against any class of individuals, including homosexuals (C.L. Pullman, p ersonal communication, August 31, 1990). In the fall of 1990, at the University of Pittsbur gh, a committee was convened to collect information about the status of ROTC on campus (Uni versity of Pittsburgh ROTC Report, 1991). In February 1992, Chancellor J. Dennis O Con ner accepted the eight recommendations, which the committee made,, with the exception of th e discontinuation of the ROTC programs by 1997 should the DoD not revise its policy. Chancell or O'Conner felt that AAU universities should act as a group in removing ROTC programs, ra ther than each institution acting individually.Banning Military Recruiters Some institutions have reacted to ROTC policy by b anning armed forces recruiters. These measures were taken not only in response to R OTC, but also to the overall military policy of excluding homosexuals. In this response, the law s which affect it and threats of repercussions from the DoD, are similar and in some cases the sam e as those affecting the ROTC (Norris, 1982). After banning military recruiters, law schools at the UC-Los Angeles, Columbia University, Harvard University, New York University and Yale University, received letters from the Judge Advocate General of the Army, Hugh Clause n, in May 1982, warning them that they could lose DoD funding if they continued to prohibi t Army recruitment (Norris, 1982). Each of these schools has policies in effect, which prohibi t recruitment by employers on campus that discriminate among a variety of ways, including sex ual orientation. Each of these law schools also claimed that this measure was taken to ensure that their actions were consistent with their own internal policies. The letters included the threat that if Army recru iters continued to be barred, the Judge Advocate General would recommend to the Secretary o f Defense that no Army officers be trained at these institutions, and that "no Defense Department contracts be awarded to your university as long as our officers are denied the a bility to recruit on campus" (Fields, 1982). The letters cited 1973 Public Law 92-436, Section 606, which prohibits the expenditure of DoD funds to any institution which bars military recrui ters from its campus (Fields, 1984a,b). This law jeopardized the future support of tuition assis tance for military personnel enrolled in the institution, research done for the military, and ex isting ROTC programs (Fields; 1982; Fields, 1984a; Card and Elder, 1989). Initially, institutions were uncertain whether fin ancial penalization applied only to the subordinate element of the institution, such as the school of law, or to the entire institution (Fields, 1982; Norris, 1982). A cutoff of DoD contr acts was the most serious concern, collectively the five institutions received over $4 0 million in 1981 in military contracts (Fields, 1982; Norris, 1982). Later clarification made it cl ear that the law only applied to the subordinate elements (Fields, 1984a,b). The schools stated that they would be willing to al low the military to recruit on campus if recruiters would sign a statement which all other e mployment recruiters sign. This statement called on recruiters to pledge that they did not di scriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of sex, race, age, national origin or sexual prefer ence (Fields, 1984,b). Armed forces recruiters refused to sign the non-discrimination statement or discuss the issue of homosexuals, none of the institutions modified their policies barring mi litary recruiters and the threat of cutting military funding was never carried out (Norris, 198 2; Fields, 1984a). In May 1984, Gen. Clausen sent a second round of l etters to the UC-Berkeley, UC-Los Angeles, Columbia University, Harvard University, U niversity of Minnesota, New York
8 of 19University, University of Pennsylvania and Yale Uni versity (Fields, 1984a). These letters reiterated the earlier warning of financial repercu ssions regarding Public Law 92-436, Section 606 (Fields, 1984a). This second series of letters was sent as a follow-up, in order to inquire about the policies of these institutions regarding military recruiters and their law schools (Fields, 1984a; Fields, 1984b). As before, institutions offered military recruiter s the opportunity to recruit, provided they signed non-discrimination statements (Fields, 1984a ; Fields, 1984b). Military recruiters did not sign the statements and no sanctions were taken aga inst the institutions as the DoD did "not wish to engage in a confrontation with institutions of higher learning over their career placement policies" (Fields, 1984b). In October 1989, the University of Iowa, College of Law joined the above institutions by banning military recruiters of the Judge Advocate G eneral from conducting interviews in the building (Kosova, 1990; Roberts, 1990). In response to this, the ROTC unit on campus allowed the recruiters to use their facilities for recruitm ent purposes (Kosova, 1990; Roberts, 1990). On September 20, 1991, the Office of Lesbian and G ay Concerns, part of the State Division of Human Rights in New York, ordered the l aw school of the State University at Buffalo to bar military recruiters from its campus citing that the armed forces discrimination against homosexuals conflicted with 1983 and 1987 E xecutive Orders issued by Governor Mario Cuomo outlawing discrimination based on sexua l orientation (Gogola, 1991). The agency ruled that by allowing the recruiters on the 64 cam pus SUNY system the law school was violating its own policies prohibiting discriminati on on the basis of sexual orientation (Mercer, 1992). However, by the end of that same day, Governor Cuo mo declared the Division of Human Rights ruling to be "unenforceable" because of a st ate education law which allows the military the same right to recruit on campus and that it was not within the authority of an executive order to affect the military (Gogola, 1991; Mercer, 1992) While the Division of Human Rights could challenge cases in state courts over alleged violat ions of New York law, they had no authority to challenge executive orders (Blumenstyk, 1991). This left the Division of Human Rights with no authority to enforce its ruling. Administrators who sought a change in the DoD poli cy toward homosexuals did not consider this to be a major defeat in their efforts (Mercer, 1992). They did concede, however, that due to the size of the SUNY system, had the ba rring of recruiters held up, it would have been a major victory (Mercer, 1992). The Chancellor of the University of Buffalo stated that he would continue to "push to see that the military op ens its doors" (Mercer, 1992). In November 1991 a bill was approved in the Illinoi s State Legislature which would have prevented the state's colleges and universities fro m barring military recruiters or the ROTC (Blumenstyk, 1991; Gogola, 1991). The bill was desi gned to see that attempts by institutions across the country to bar recruiters were not succe ssful in Illinois (Blumenstyk, 1991; Gogola, 1991). However, Governor Jim Edgar vetoed the bill, explaining that he felt it was an intrusion into the rights of higher education governing board s to regulate their own institutions (Blumenstyk, 1991; Gogola, 1991).Removal of ROTC from Campus The complete removal of ROTC from an institution, and severance of relations with ROTC, is another position administrators have consi dered (Jaschik, 1993). The appropriateness of severing the institution from ROTC has been deri ved from that fact that it is the local unit, which is in violation of institutional policy (Card and Elder, 1989). The object of putting pressure on the local unit has been to persuade the DoD at its highest authority to change its policy regarding homosexuals (Card and Elder, 1989) However, the idea of barring ROTC from
9 of 19campuses, in order to bring the institution into co mpliance with institutional policies prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, is comp licated by the responsibilities of land grant institutions to offer military training and the pol itical repercussions of eliminating the ROTC at AAU universities (Collison, 1989; Kosova, 1989; Car d and Elder, 1990). At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, faculty me mbers asked for the removal of ROTC from the campus, only to be overruled by the p resident and board of trustees (Michaud, 1990). In December 1989, at the first full meeting since 1970, faculty voted to urge the Board of Regents to remove the ROTC from campus and sever al l university contacts by 1993 unless it changed its policy of excluding homosexuals (Card a nd Elder, 1989; Gross, 1990; Kosova, 1990). The faculty found ROTC to be in violation of institutional policies in addition to state law (Card and Elder, 1989). State law became an iss ue when state legislators passed Wisconsin Assembly Bill 70, which broadened non-discriminatio n laws to include sexual orientation (J.S. Riley, personal communication, August 30, 1990). However, Chancellor Donna E. Shalala and University of Wisconsin System President Kenneth Shaw, both of whom also supported an end to the ban, decided instead that the institution would be best served by lobbying the st ate's Congressional delegation to change the policy (Clark, 1990b; Gross, 1990). They stated in their recommendation to the Board of Regents, the only body with the authority to termin ate the university's relationship with ROTC, "that we continue the ROTC program at UW-Madison. A t the same time, we join our university colleagues in expressing strong opposition to the c urrent U.S. military policy with respect to discrimination" (Card and Elder, 1989; J.S. Riley, personal communication, August 30, 1990). In spite of strictly enforced campus and state pol icies prohibiting discrimination, the University of Wisconsin-Madison made an exception t o ROTC, allowing it to remain on campus, over the objections of its faculty (Clark, 1990b; Gross, 1990; Kosova, 1990). When the faculty asked Chancellor Shalala to place a disclai mer in university publications which included information stating that university ROTC programs w ere in violation of institutional policy and state law, both the Chancellor and System President declined (J.S. Riley, personal communication, August 30, 1990). On May 9, 1990, the University Council at the Univ ersity of Pennsylvania adopted a resolution stipulating the suspension of the ROTC p rogram after June 1993, if the DoD were to continue to exclude homosexuals (R.C. Miner, person al communication, August 30, 1990). On May 16, 1990, the faculty at MIT passed a resolutio n notifying the institutions administration that it was requesting the suspension of the ROTC p rogram after the fall of 1993 if the DoD policy were still in effect (B.R. Maca, personal co mmunication, September 4, 1990). At Syracuse University, the Faculty Military Affairs C ommittee developed a resolution which was passed on April 30, 1990 by the Faculty Senate, cal ling for the DoD to change its policy on homosexuals or face the elimination of the ROTC pro gram by June 30, 1994 (R.E. Little, personal communication, August 30, 1990). ROTC Commanders have asserted that exclusion on th e basis of sexual preference is legal and permissible under the authority of federa l law which precedes state, local and institutional law, and on the basis that courts hav e ruled, until recently, that exclusion based on sexual preference was not unconstitutional (Card an d Elder, 1989). Administrators assert, however, that at times in the history of the United States, slavery, the return of fugitive slaves, school segregation and the internment of Japanese-A merican citizens on the basis of their ancestry during World War II were all supported by federal law, only to be later changed (Card and Elder, 1989). Administrators have asserted that qualified homosexual students are placed at a disadvantage while unable to benefit from those s ame scholarships (Card and Elder, 1989). William B. Rubenstein, Director of the Gay and Les bian Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, stated that pressure by inst itutions on the DoD has been significant because it comes from "the smartest people in our s ociety" (Blumenstyk, 1991). He has cited
10 of 19pressure to remove the ROTC on campuses around the country as the single most important and powerful factor which has pressured the DoD to chan ge its policy (Rubenstein, 1992). The option of removal has been complicated by the l egal responsibilities of land grant institutions, such as the University of Wisconsin-M adison, to offer military instruction under the provisions of the Morrill Act of 1862 (Card and Eld er, 1990; Kosova, 1990). However, institutions could remove ROTC presence while still satisfying their military training obligations (Card and Elder, 1990). The Morrill Act states under Section 4 that the funding derived from the sale of lands shall be used for: ...maintenance of at least one college where the le ading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, a nd including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to a griculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the States ma y respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of t he industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life. From the development of the Morrill Act in 1862 unt il the creation of the ROTC in 1916 under the National Defense Act, land grant institut ions have fulfilled their obligation through offering compulsory drill to male students and thro ugh the development of Departments of Military Science (Hedemann, 1985; Card and Elder, 1 989). Under the provisions of the Morrill Act, land grant institutions have the option to rem ove ROTC from the institution provided they are able to successfully satisfy their respective s tate legislatures with regard to offering military instruction (Card and Elder, 1989). Therefore, ROTC is not the only way for land grant institutions to fulfill this obligation. Administra tors were compelled to take into consideration that public support for homosexuals was not strong, and the impact this would have on politically minded state legislators to support rem oval. Further consequences made this option the least re alistic. Administrators had to consider that banning ROTC programs from universities would only prevent some students from being able to attend college without ROTC tuition benefit s, resulting in a loss of students at a time when funding is badly needed (Collison, 1989). One consequence of banning ROTC units from campuses will be the prevention of capable men and women from attending college and serving their country (W.J. Diol, personal communication, A ugust 27, 1990). Another consequence of banning ROTC would be the t ransfer of the primary education for the nation's military leadership to military ac ademies, such as West Point and Annapolis, and to traditionally conservative southern institutions such as Virginia Military Institute and The Citadel, eliminating the ability of more liberal in stitutions to influence the development of the American officer corps (W.J. Diol, personal communi cation, August 27, 1990). At service academies, potential officers receive a curriculum much narrower than that found at universities, and at conservative southern institutions cadets wo uld not have been exposed to the liberal environment and wide variety of ideas found at more progressive northern institutions (W.J. Diol, personal communication, August 27, 1990). In addition, if ROTC were removed from the institution, there would have been little, if any, opportunity to pursue a dialogue with the government to end discrimination. A perspective expressed by one ROTC commander cons idered there to be little chance of removal, dismissing it as "an old goal espoused by the 60's generation professors who still dislike ROTC. This is a low risk possibility" (M.S. Geoghagan, personal communication, August 24, 1990). In addition, some ROTC commanders did not take academic opposition to ROTC seriously; one Army ROTC commander at the Univ ersity of Wisconsin-Madison described the institution and city as "an island su rrounded by a sea of reality" (J.S. Riley, personal communication, August 30, 1990).
11 of 19 So far, only Pitzer College, one of the Claremont C olleges in California, voted to ask ROTC to leave campus because it conflicted with the institution's non-discrimination policy (Clark, 1990b; Collinson, 1990b). The college facul ty voted to remove ROTC from the campus and the president upheld the vote. The policy becam e effective in September, 1991 (Michaud, 1991).Distancing the Institution from the ROTC Administrators opposed to the exclusion of homosexu als as well as the removal of ROTC from higher education have suggested instead distan cing institutions from ROTC (Davis, 1990). This point of view manifested in two forms, the phy sical removal of ROTC from the institution and the disassociation of the institution through p olicy (Clark; 1990; Davis, 1990; B.R. Maca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). The concept of physically distancing the instituti on from ROTC originated at Harvard University, which successfully offered ROTC trainin g at facilities and locations off campus since 1972, when it was relocated in protest of the Vietnam War (Davis, 1990). Since that time, coursework and training have taken place in Nationa l Guard and Reserve Centers (Davis, 1990). The physical relocation of ROTC training satisfied those opposed to the complete removal of ROTC from the institution (Davis, 1990). This response had the added prospect of benefiting both the institution and ROTC cadets. Ev en while operated off campus, institutions continued to benefit from ROTC scholarships as well as positive relations with the DoD, necessary for funding at research universities (Dav is, 1990). At the same time, the interaction with reservists and other active duty officers bene fited cadets (Davis, 1990). Physical relocation further eased academic conflict through eliminating the necessity of military officers to hold academic rank, a common source of tension among fac ulty members (Davis, 1990). Although travel to such facilities was at times di fficult and costly for the cadets and institutions, travel to other sites for ROTC traini ng and coursework continues to be commonplace at small institutions which have histor ically not produced a large enough number of ROTC graduates to warrant a program of their own (Davis, 1990). From a financial perspective, this policy was appealing to the DoD a s well. By reducing the number of battalions while not closing programs at institutions, which w ould deny opportunity to students interested in ROTC, the DoD was able to commission the same nu mber of cadets upon graduation, at a lower cost (Davis, 1990). Furthermore, centrally lo cated battalions brought together students from a variety of institutions, making ROTC a more appealing option for institutions without a strong ROTC history or for those considering develo ping an ROTC program of their own (Davis, 1990). However, this did not address the central issue of ROTC policy, the exclusion of homosexuals (Alderson, 1990; Solomon, 1990). Physic al relocation represented only a short-term solution as opposed to developing strate gies to change policy in the same manner that the history of discrimination against women and Afr ican-Americans was addressed (Solomon, 1990; Williams, 1990). Moving ROTC off campus did n ot completely resolve that issue. Administrators who advocated stronger responses ar gued that only changing ROTC policy would resolve the problem of exclusion and u ltimately make ROTC better equipped to produce representative, well educated officers (Sol omon, 1990). As representatives of enlightened institutions, administrators were been encouraged to hold their moral ground and confront the issue rather than avoid it (Solomon, 1 990). Rutgers University addressed the conflict between ROTC and institutional non-discrimination policies by distancing itself fr om the ROTC program it hosts. In November 1989, T. Alexander Pond, Acting President of Rutger s University, ordered the implementation of a report issued by the Select Committee on Gay a nd Lesbian Concerns, organized by Mr.
12 of 19Pond in February 1988, in response to complaints of discrimination made by homosexual students, directed toward the ROTC program (B.R. Ma ca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). Under the area of Curriculum and Academic Affairs, the committee made the following recommendations: The university must ensure that the joint cooperati ve academic programs offered by Rutgers in cooperation with outside agen cies are in full compliance with Rutgers non-discrimination policy. Programs which d o not comply or cannot be brought into compliance should be terminated. Examp les include the Army ROTC and Air Force ROTC (B.R. Maca, personal communicati on, September 4, 1990). In response to the recommendations of the committe e, in August 1990, Rutgers University ceased awarding four merit scholarships to four Army and Air Force ROTC cadets attending the university (Clark, 1990b; B.R. Maca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). Merit scholarships were benefits which paid $1,700 per year in the form of room and board, above and beyond ROTC support (B.R. Maca, pe rsonal communication, September 4, 1990). Mr. Pond announced the policy in an open let ter to the university support (B.R. Maca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). This wa s the first time an institution cut ROTC scholarships because of ROTC policy (Clark, 1990b). ROTC students who were receiving scholarship aid at the time of the announcement wer e not affected. In explaining this move, William David Burns, Vice -President at Rutgers, stated that the ROTC policy was as "outmoded as their former policy on women and blacks" (Clark, 1990b; Nelson, 1990). He also said that their objective in this move was "not to deny the program to a certain group of students, but to open it to all" ( Clark, 1990b). In addition, Rutgers placed in all university literature describing ROTC, a statement that ROTC discriminates against homosexuals and that this contradicts university po licy (B.R. Maca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). Rutgers policy prohibited discr imination against individuals based on their sexual orientation (Clark, 1990b). In addition, Mr. Pond joined with presidents of other AAU institutions to write to Secretary Cheney to encour age a change in DoD policy (B.R. Maca, personal communication, September 4, 1990). Princeton University approached this issue in a si milar manner. Among the recommendations a 1990 Princeton University committ ee made, were revising publications in order to clearly verbalize that the ROTC policy of excluding homosexuals was in violation of the university non-discrimination policy and that t he university was opposed to this form of discrimination (Davis, 1990). Administrators further distanced the institution b y lobbying the DoD to increase its efforts to recruit students from graduating classes minimizing the need for ROTC (Davis, 1990). Such activity would have worked to satisfy t he military need for college and university educated men and women, while reducing the need for a military presence on campus (Davis, 1990). Administrators also lobbied the DoD to make more extensive use of summer training programs. Two summer programs instead of one would have reduced the need for military classes at the university, or even have made such c lasses unnecessary (Davis, 1990). Many ROTC officers objected to the idea of the ins titution distancing itself from ROTC (Hatheway, 1990). Physical relocation was considere d a low level threat, however, removal of academic credit and budget support was a significan t concern, considered to have been a greater threat with a stronger likelihood of occurrence (M. S. Geoghagan, personal communication, August 24, 1990). A disadvantage to physically moving ROTC off campus was that ROTC cadets would have been less likely to develop fully into free th inking, critically minded officers who are best developed in the higher education environment (Cinq uino, 1990). The very presence of military
13 of 19officers in the higher education environment has st imulated the free discussion of the values of the military and higher education in the preservati on of national defense (Cinquino, 1990). If ROTC enrollments were to drop, the Army would be forced to lower its commissioning standards in order to meet its needs. We have witnessed the results of lowered standards, most recently during the expa nsion of the officer corps during the Vietnam War. I would suggest that if the office rs in common at My Lai had been commissioned through ROTC, we would never have heard of that unfortunate hamlet. ROTC officers, liberally educated, and ther efore aware of their larger responsibilities to society and to humankind, would never have allowed a massacre to take place (Cinquino, 1990). Changing the University Environment Administrators also approached the problem of ROTC exclusion of homosexuals as part of a larger societal problem with the issue of homo sexual rights, and attempted to address the issue through education. In 1990, the University of Minnesota offered its first course on gay studies (McNaron, 1991). English 101 classes in som e universities developed writing assignments on homosexuality topics and homosexual writers. With curricular changes such as these at major uni versities, it was difficult to ignore the challenges with respect to homosexuals and ROTC (Mc Naron, 1991). Starting in 1989, Harvard University hosted an annual national conference ori ented toward homosexual research and inquiry (McNaron, 1991). That same year, Harvard Un iversity appointed an Assistant Dean of Student Affairs to deal with homosexual issues on c ampus. At Indiana University in 1990, the Dean of Students and Vice-Chancellor began developi ng an educational task force on gays, lesbians and bisexuals (J.G. Kryway, personal commu nication, August 28, 1990). In addition, Yale University, Rutgers University, the City Unive rsity of New York and Berkeley University established homosexual studies programs, while inst itutions were in varied processes of developing programs of study (McNaron, 1991).Clinton Compromise In the spring of 1993, homosexual lobbying groups b egan pressuring President Bill Clinton to fulfill his campaign promise to improve homosexual rights. However, members of Congress revolted at the idea of allowing homosexua ls in the armed forces. The six members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff fueled their anger, lead by its Chairman, General Colin Powell, who strongly resisted the possibility of homosexuals be ing allowed in the armed forces. After two weeks of negotiation, the President, wit h Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, and Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of the Hou se Armed Services Committee, agreed to a six month period of policy review, to be accompan ied by a moratorium on discharges and disenrollments for homosexuality (Clinton, 1993). O n February 3, 1993, the DoD issued revised instructions to the ROTC regarding enrollment and c ommissioning of cadets (G. Bond, personal communication, February 18, 1993). These orders inc luded instructions regarding the disposition of homosexual cadets. Under the "don't ask, don't tell" guidelines, cadets were not to be questioned about their sexual preference (G. Bon d, personal communication, February 18, 1993). However, any cadet who had stated he or she were homosexual would not be offered a commission (G. Bond, personal communication, Februa ry 18, 1993).Summary and Discussion
14 of 19 The presence of the ROTC on AAU campuses around the country benefited both higher education and the armed forces (Patterson, 1985). H igher education benefited from the scholarship students and funding the DoD has provid ed. The military benefited from a corps of well educated officers representative of a broad ba se of the population and more easily able to secure the trust and confidence of a free nation (M alpass, 1985). While these were valuable and beneficial to higher education and the nation, they also were the source of conflict and strained relations with the military establishment. Institutions responded in a variety of ways to ROTC policy of excluding homosexuals. Administrators who responded supportively cited the many benefits of ROTC to higher education and the nation (Shelton, 1985; Card and E lder, 1989; Davis, 1990; Kosova, 1990). Others tried to remain neutral in order not to inte rfere with positive and profitable governmental relations as well as to avoid taking a moral positi on a political issue (Malpass, 1985; Trow, 1987; Davis, 1990; Kosova, 1990; Jaschik, 1993). Th e banning of military recruiters became an issue in 1982, when law schools at the Universities of California-Los Angeles, Columbia, Harvard, New York and Yale, banned recruiters from their law schools (Norris, 1982). This rose again in 1991 when the Office of Lesbian and Gay Co ncerns, part of the State Division of Human Rights in New York, ordered the law school at the State University at Buffalo to bar military recruiters from its campus (Blumenstyk, 19 91). The complete removal of ROTC from the institution, and severance of all relations wit h ROTC, was another position institutions considered. However, only Pitzer College, one of th e Claremont Colleges in California, voted to ask ROTC to leave campus because it conflicted with the institution's non-discrimination policy (Clark, 1990b; Collinson, 1990b). Administrators op posed to the exclusion of homosexuals in ROTC as well as the removal of ROTC from higher edu cation suggested instead, distancing institutions from ROTC (Davis, 1990). With the exception of supportive responses to ROTC policy, all other responses shared one common element, changing individual attitudes w ith respect to how society regards homosexuals. Whether intentional or not, this seeks to indirectly change policy through changing attitudes and values. This is done by send ing the community a message that the denial of opportunity to a group of people is unacceptable The dispute over the place of homosexuals in the mi litary was more than just a matter of different policy perspectives, it was the continuat ion of a national battle on homosexual rights (Adair and Myers, 1993). Challenging the military p olicy regarding homosexuals was one of the central battlegrounds in fighting homophobia at lar ge. Whether one agrees with the policy or not, it was policies such as this which contributed to the emotional and physical abuse and discrimination of homosexuals by sending out an unc onscious message that it was acceptable to place these people at a disadvantage and deny them equal treatment (Collison, 1989). No one knows how many ROTC cadets were disenrolled for their sexual preference (Kosova, 1990). Pentagon statistics are lumped toge ther with those disenrolled for reasons such as failure to meet weight standards (Kosova, 1990). In 1989, 20,178 Air Force ROTC cadets were enrolled across the country (Clark, 1990b; Gro ss, 1990). Of these, 1,155 were disenrolled for various reasons (Kosova, 1990). The average cos t to educate and train a cadet in 1990 was $39,598 (Kosova, 1990). If one were to assume the l iberal figure that 10% of these cadets were disenrolled based on their sexual preference, the c ost to the United States taxpayers would have been $4.5 million. If similar formulas were applied to all three branches of the ROTC, the cost to taxpayers rises to $9 million at a low point to $18 million at the very highest estimate (Kosova, 1990). This does not even mention the loss of talented leadership that cannot possibly carry a price tag. Policy makers can learn a great deal from this iss ue. The level of controversy that developed over ROTC policy makes it clear that admi nistrators cannot underestimate the sense of injustice people will experience if they perceiv e a group being the victim of discrimination. If
15 of 19that feeling of injustice is strong enough, as it w as in this case, it will spill out of the instituti on into the larger social scene and become a political issue, as was the case in the 1992 national elections. This is also an issue of institutional priorities, the authority of internal institutional non-discrimination policy over a discriminatory pro gram operating in the institution. Evidence demonstrated that ROTC programs were institutional activities and subject to the authority of the institution (University of Pittsburgh Report, 1 991). This was demonstrated by universities providing office space for ROTC staff, salaries, cr edits, faculty status for ROTC instructors and offering ROTC courses to students who were not cade ts (Swartz, 1990; University of Pittsburgh Report, 1991). Allowing outside authorities to dete rmine, in part, institutional policy was nothing new to higher education. This was and is st ill the case with grant or research funding guidelines, and accrediting agencies. However, by a llowing the DoD to operate a program within the institution which openly discriminated a gainst a protected minority, institutions effectively allowed the military to determine insti tutional policy over the objections of educational administrators, violating institutional policies, posing a threat to academic autonomy. Only by seeking a change in DoD policy, c ould institutions legitimately and rightfully achieve enforcement of its own policies in its own borders (Card and Elder, 1989). A disturbing aspect of this policy is the deceptio n and hypocrisy involved. This deception is embodied in examples of senior level administrat ors publicly criticizing ROTC policy, then privately informing their unit commanders of their support for ROTC. In another instance a university president refused to acknowledge the con flict between an institutional nondiscrimination statement, and a policy which openly violated that statement. This type of behavior only served to blanket this issue in more controversy and arouse emotions, making it more difficult to diffuse the problem rationally.ReferencesAdair, R. and Myers, J. (1993). Admission of gays t o the military: A singularly intolerant act. Parameters Spring, 10-19. Berube, A. (1990). Coming out under fire: The history of gay men and w omen in World War II New York, NY: The Free Press.Blumenstyk, G. (1991, January 16). Marine Corps fig hts attempts to block campus recruiting. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 37, 23. Card, C. and Elder, J. (1991). Position papers addr essing eleven frequently heard arguments for allowing ROTC to remain on the UW-Madison campus de spite discrimination on the grounds of sexual identity Madison, WI: University of Wisconsi n-Madison, Faculty Against Discrimination in University Programs.Cinquino, J. (1990, June 27). Repercussions of movi ng ROTC off campus. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 36, 4. Clark, K. (1990, August 29). CSU system faculty joi ns the anti-ROTC push. TWN 1. Clark, K. (1990, August 29). Rutgers abolished ROTC scholarships. TWN 10. Clinton, W. (1993, January 30) "Transcript of Presi dent Clinton's news conference." The Washington Post Vol. 74, 12.
16 of 19Collison, M. (1989, November 8). Many ROTC units un der fire because of services' anti-homosexual policies. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 36, 37-40. Collison, M. (1990, March 14). Homosexual ROTC stud ent may be asked to return Army scholarship. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 36, 2. Collison, M. (1990, May 23). College officials urge Cheney to reverse ban on homosexuals. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 36, 2. Collison, M. (1991, February 13). Pentagon to cut n umber of ROTC scholarships by 20% over five years, starting in 1991-92. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 35, 31. Cushman, J. ( 1992, November 14). Top military offi cers object to lifting homosexual ban. The New York Times Vol. 142, 9. Davis, J. (1990, May 30). Controversies over ROTC c ould be eased by offering the training at off-campus sites. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 36, 3. Davis, J. ( 1990). Military policy toward homosexua ls: Scientific, historic and legal perspectives. Unpublished masters thesis, Judge Adv ocate General's School of the United States Army.Dynes, W., Ed. (1987). Homosexuality: A research guide. New York, NY: Garland Publishing. Fields, C. (1982, August, 24). Six universities cou ld lose defense contracts over law schools' bans on Army recruiters. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 24, 6. Fields, C. (1984, June 6). Law schools told they co uld lose funds from Pentagon if they bar recruiters. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 28, 13-14. Fields, C. (1984, June 13). Pentagon rules allow it to deny funds to college units that bar recruiters. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 28, 15-16. Gogola, T. (1991, December 2). Ecce Cuomo. The Nation Vol. 253, 693. Gross, J. (1990, May 6). ROTC under siege for ousti ng. The New York Times 12-13. Hedemann, E. (1984). The evolution of ROTC. ROTC/JR OTC Clearinghouse, War Registers League.Jaschik, S. (1993, February 3). Colleges say ending military ban on gays would ease threat to ROTC. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 39, 15. Kosova, W. (1990, February 19). ROTC ya later. New Republic Vol. 202, 24. Loesler, L. (1945). The sexual psychopath in the mi litary service: A study of 270 cases. American Journal of Psychiatry Vol. 102, 92-101. Malpass, L. (1985). The benefits of ROTC on campus: A president's perspective. Educational Record Vol. 66 (Winter), 1518. McNaron, T. (1991). Making life more livable for ga ys and lesbians on campus. Educational Record Vol. 72 (1), 19-22.
17 of 19Mercer, J. (1992, April 29). New York allows milita ry recruiting as SUNY, despite armed forces refusal to recruit gays. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 38, 25. Norris, W. (1990, March 16). U.S. Army demands gay cadet repays grant. Times Educational Supplement Vol. 906 (11), 4. Patterson, D. (1985). The University of Southern Ca lifornia: Strengthening academic support systems for ROTC programs. Educational Record Vol. 66 (1), 50-53. Rubenstein, W. (1991, April 15). The ROTC on campus Lecture presented at the University of Pittsburgh, School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA.Shelton, J. (1985). Why military campus programs ne ed campus support in the '80s. Educational Record Vol. 66 (1), 23-24. Smith, D. (1985). To protect a free society: Mainta ining excellence in the military. Educational Record Vol. 66 (1), 1113. Snyder, W. and Nyberg, K. (1980). Gays and the mili tary: An emerging policy issue. Journal of Political and Military Sociology Vol. 8, 71-84. Solomon, H. (1990, June 27). Repercussions of movin g ROTC off campus. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 36, 4. Swartz, S. (1990, August 24). Kansas University mee ting to study refusal to ban ROTC commissioning. The Topeka Capital Journal, 1.Trow, M. (1987, September 30). College trustees sho uld not make moral pronouncements on such political matters as divestment and South Afri ca. Chronicle of Higher Education Vol. 34, 1-2.University of Pittsburgh Non-Discrimination Policy Statement. (1990). Pittsburgh, PA.: University of Pittsburgh, Office of Affirmative Act ion. University of Pittsburgh ROTC report. (1990). Pitts burgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Williams, C. (1971). Homosexuals and the military: A less than honorabl e discharge New York, NY: Harper and Row.Personal CommunicationBond, G., Jr. Memorandum prepared by the Chief of O perations and Marketing Division, United States Army ROTC Command, Headquarters, Unit ed States Army, First Region, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, February 18, 1993.Brown, D. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commander at the University of Illinois-Champaign, August 30, 1990.Diol, W. Memorandum prepared by ROTC Commander at D avison College, Davison, North Carolina. August 27, 1990.Geoghagan, M. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Comma nder at the University of Pittsburgh, August 24, 1990.
18 of 19 Jalette, S. Memorandum prepared by ROTC Commander a t The Johns Hopkins University, August 30, 1990.Kryway, J. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commande r at Indiana University, August 28, 1990.Kuhn, L. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commander at the University of Kansas, August 28, 1990.Little, R. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commande r at Syracuse University, August 30, 1990.Maca, B. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commander at Rutgers University, September 4, 1990.Minor, C. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commander at the University of Pennsylvania, August 30, 1990.Moore, R. Memorandum prepared by the Presiding Offi cer of the University Senate at the University of Kansas, May 8, 1990.Moore, R. and Scott, W. Memorandum prepared by the Presiding Officer of the University Senate at the University of Kansas, May 25, 1990.Petrick, J. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Command er at the University of Minnesota, August 29, 1990.Pullman, C. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Command er at Washington State University, August 30, 1990.Riley, J. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Commander at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, August 30, 1990.Roberts, P. Memorandum prepared by the ROTC Command er at the University of Iowa, August 29, 1990.About the AuthorLee S. Duemer Email: email@example.com Lee S. Duemer received his M.A. (Higher Education, 1993) and Ph.D. (Social, Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education, 1996) at th e University of Pittsburgh, School of Education. He is currently Foundation and Business Relations Officer at Averett College in Danville, Virginia. His research interest is the hi story and politics of policy issues in higher education.Copyright 1997 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is
19 of 19 http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Stat e University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692). T he Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: email@example.com The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Marshall University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North Carolina--Greensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Rocky Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education William McInerney Purdue University Mary P. McKeown Arizona Board of Regents Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson Arizona State University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers University of California at Davis Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of Illinois--UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University