From: scotts@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Safier)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: CMU's report on ROTC
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:33:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: MORPHEUS.SCOTTS.92Aug25143314
Distribution: soc
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: scotts@MORPHEUS.CIMDS.RI.CMU.EDU

This report was released to campus on the first day of school.

 		Human Relations

					    Commission





				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.