Newsgroups: bit.listserv.gaynet
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:45:01 -0400
From:         gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
Subject:      GayNet Digest Volume 5 Issue 656

In this issue:
                          CMU's report on ROTC

Please send messages for the entire list to gaynet@ATHENA.MIT.EDU,
requests to be added or deleted to gaynet-request@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, and
personal replies directly to the other person, not the entire list.
Postings to GayNet are public communications.  If you must keep your
privacy, send your messages to gaynet-anonymous@ATHENA.MIT.EDU.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:09-EDT
From: Scott.Safier@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU
Subject: CMU's report on ROTC

 		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.
































\enddata{text, 1984935764}

------------------------------

End of GayNet Digest
********************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU