ROTC policy arguments have weak foundations


In Melissa Prentice's article, "Students Fight Military Policy," (Feb. 14) Michael Clifton-Harter asks in reference to the UA ROTC, "Why should my tuition money be used to support a program that does not allow me to be a part of it?" Later, the article clearly states that Mr. Clifton-Harter and his comrade ASUA Senator Jonathan Bierner both "decided to remain in the military science class because they said they enjoy the class ..." If Mr. Clifton-Harter remains in the class, then he is indeed part of the program; thus, he disqualifies the basis of the question. On a broader level, Mr. Clifton-Harter argues, "The military is now pro-active and integrated regarding minorities and women, but in the '50s this issue could be the same, just replacing homosexuals with blacks and Hispanics. The military should change their stance on this as they have with other minority issues." Although an interesting argument, once again, the foundation is weak. He compares apples to oranges. Mr. Clifton-Harter is probably armed with tenuous reports that attempt to argue otherwise, but the fact of the matter is that homosexuals are homosexuals by choice, whereas blacks are blacks and Hispanics are Hispanics by the powers that be. With this in mind, he should not hitch homosexuals to "other minority issues." Every choice has a consequence, and a consequence of homosexuality is an abstinence from that activity if a position in the United States military is desired.

Senator Bierner claims "this decade is a gay revolution." "It's scary," he says. "We are up against the entire heterosexual population." The Senator may wish to disavow this sweeping generalization, for it is certain that if he walked among his peers at the UA he would find heterosexuals supportive of his cause. Perhaps he could even persuade them to join Mr. Clifton-Harter and himself in the revolution.

Philip Gustav Mueller

Political Science Freshman

Read Next Article