ROTC was banned from Harvard  in 1969 when the administration caved to the demands of anti-war student radicals. This banishment included ROTC recruiters. Alumni funding was voted on in 1994, when it was decided that Harvardís name should be divorced completely  from the program because of the conflict between university anti-discrimination policy and militaryís policy toward gays.

But on the heels of a humiliating 14-5 softball loss to our friends at the Crimson, the UC revealed that it had been reserving its talents and energies during the game for the challenge of the eveningís debate.The pre-vote proceedings were tedious, but ultimately they paid off. The final version of the bill was worthy of the applause it received on passage. 

In short, the bill states the following: While the UC, in accordance with the non-descrimination clause in its constitution, withholds support for the militaryís "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy concerning homosexuals (this being the main bone of contention for the bill's opponents), it urges the administration and the Office of Career Services to allow open ROTC recruitment on campus. The UC will work with the University to set up a better shuttle-bus system for the cadets and midshipmen who train at MIT. It recommends that Harvard's name and administrative oversight be attached to the pool of ROTC's Harvard alumni funds. And it authorizes an official task force headed by UC members Aurelio Torre '00, who authored the bill, Bradley Davis '00, and Brian Smith '02, who is himself a cadet in ROTC Air Force.

Last Sundayís bill was debated before a large crowd. The UC doesn't usually entertain visitors; not because it won't, but because most people are uninterested in watching the body's proceedings. This time, though, the meeting was packed. Many of the guests were supporters of ROTC, a large number of them cadets and midshipmen. UC Vice President Kamil Redmond was visibly perturbed by the presence of so many outsiders, and President Noah Seton pounded his gavel several times during the loud applause ó a sound the UC is unaccustomed to hearing. 

Several of the ROTC students attending made important points in defense of the bill. Some mentioned how they are at MIT up to six times a week for their special courses and training, emphasizing the concrete inconveniences Harvardís anti-ROTC policy engenders. A midshipman explained that though Harvard refuses to support the Corps, it's moral indignation doesn't stretch so far as turning down the million of dollars in research grants the U.S. Department of Defense gives the University each year. Still another cadet discussed the added hypocrisy of Harvard's refusing to fund ROTC cross-registration at MIT while in all other instances it is standard university policy to aid students' cross-registration costs.

The debate over the ROTC bill involved tortuous UC grappling with amendments and amendments to the amendments. The main amendment was offered by the bill's sponsors themselves: it expanded the original draft to include the shuttle-bus and alumni-fund clauses, and it qualified the call for ROTC's return with the words "as soon as practically convenient and/or possible for the University as well as ROTC." Passed as amendments to this amendment were the clause about the UC's non-support of the military's policy concerning homosexuals, the striking of the clause which would allow for an actual Harvard ROTC detachment, and the addition of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community to the task force. "Regardless of the concessions made," however, says Brian Smith, "we are now able to openly reach students who have a genuine interest in serving their country."

Rejected by the UC were an amendment which would have upheld the 1994 decision to disassociate Harvard's name from ROTC alumni funds and a second, offered by Todd Plants '01 which would have added a clause condemning ROTC in moral terms for its "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The rejection of this particular amendment was most welcome -- the UC ruled that the effort to excoriate the militaryís immorality was not "germane" to the issue at hand. Such restraint is rarely exercised by the UC.

The bill's architects were determined to keep politics out of the debate. "This is an issue of student services," said Aurelio Torre, not about Left and Right. It was refreshing to see the UC stick to this goal. By rejecting Plants' amendment the UC showed that it can indeed address sensitive issues in a manner consistent with its intended function -- serving students. This bill easily could have turned into the kind of preachy, unproductive moral statement we are used to seeing. But it didn't. And the result was genuine progress in the defense of student interests.

And what does this bill truly mean for Harvard students? For the members who voted ìnoî it means what they consider to be institutional "homophobia" at Harvard. But to the many students who participate in ROTC it means long-overdue acceptance and support from the University. No longer will they be stigmatized for their decision to serve their country.

Many who voted "yes" recognize that the bill which passed does not go as far as it should. There should be no reason why ROTC can't physically come to campus. But Sunday's vote was a giant leap in the right direction. Who would have thought, after all that has come to pass, that Harvard students would rally behind ROTC and accept its return with open arms? The passage of this bill marks the end of an era. The anti-military animus begat by Vietnam has lost its grip on Harvard students. Rationality and patriotism have, in the end, prevailed.

"This bill," says Torre, "is a great first step in honoring a program which contributes so much to this nationís safety and prosperity. These cadets devote a great portion of their lives to defend our right to even talk about these issues; this bill was the least we could do to applaud their efforts." And so it was. Let's hope the UC continues down this path. There are a lot of things to criticize the UC for: its tendencies to regard issues like gay-marriage and Burma as within its purvue, its performance on the baseball diamond -- but if it can keep producing legislation like this ROTC bill, it deserves a hearty pat on the back.