Twice now, the Undergraduate Council has indicated its support for bringing ROTC back to campus. On April 11, it passed legislation endorsing ROTC's return to Harvard. Two weeks later, a motion to rescind the bill - and withdraw UC support for ROTC cadets - failed by a vote of 21-29. It is now time for these symbolic votes to be infused with substance: the Faculty should follow the UC's lead and vote to reinstate ROTC on Harvard's campus at the earliest opportunity. 

The recent ROTC debate has illuminated two trends in Harvard campus politics. First, the good news: campus conservatism continues to be on the rise. Following in the tradition of last year's Great Grape Referendum and the back-to-back elections of Beth Stewart and Noah Seton to the UC presidency, the ROTC vote shows that when conservatives organize and dedicate themselves to building a consensus among students, victory is within their grasp. 

But it's not time to celebrate just yet. The fate of the ROTC bill has shed light on another, darker trend - the continued  captivity of a significant and influential portion of the Harvard community to identity politics. After meeting with members of the BGLTSA, Dean Harry Lewis announced that no changes in Harvard's posture towards ROTC are likely until the military reverses its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy towards homosexuals. Reasoning along similar lines, BGLTSA co-chair Michael Tan argued in a Crimson op-ed that the ROTC bill - and the UC itself - are "homophobic." 

Harvard's non-discrimination clause -which bans organizations discriminating along lines of sexual orientation from campus - is the chief barrier blocking ROTC's return. The clause is a noble and well-intentioned effort to ensure fairness to all members of a community founded on liberal ideals of tolerance, respect, and diversity. But the military is a special institution in American society. It serves to  defend - by force of arms if necessary - those freedoms without which institutions such as Harvard (and groups like the BGLTSA) would be lost. Its policies can be debated and disagreed with, but the military always deserves the utmost respect and consideration. This means welcoming its presence, even at Harvard. 

Other reasons to back ROTC's reinstatement include the symbolic support such a move would provide to those Harvard students who have decided to dedicate their lives to national service and the fact that increased participation in ROTC would enable more students to benefit from military scholarships.  There are also free speech concerns: under current policy, ROTC is banned from postering in Harvard Yard, co-sponsoring guest speakers, and recruiting students during activity fairs. All students, conservatives and liberals alike, should shudder at this kind of censorship - especially when it's our military being discriminated against. 

Thirty years after it evicted ROTC, the Faculty has the opportunity to reverse its momentous mistake. Then the issue was Vietnam, now it's gay rights, but Harvard's decision to keep ROTC out today is as arrogant as it was in 1969. Given the current groundswell of support for reinstatement, the Faculty should welcome ROTC back to campus as soon as possible.