Elimination of ROTC Would Unjustly Hurt Students in Program
I am writing to express my disagreement with your editorial stating the ROTC program at MIT should be eliminated ["Institute Must Plan to End ROTC," Feb. 10].
In the late 1980s and early 1990s there has been a focus on being politically correct and working for minority rights. What everyone seems to forget in this debate is that we should remember our similarities as well as our differences. In the ROTC debate people forget we are Americans first, then homosexual or heterosexual.
I always thought the struggle was about creating equal opportunities for all people, and I fail to see how the elimination of opportunities such as the ROTC program furthers this goal.
Who would be hurt by the elimination of the ROTC program at MIT? The government? The military? Think again: The military can get officers easier and with less expense through other programs. The only ones hurt by the elimination of the ROTC program would be the cadets, MIT students.
What about the students in the program? I don't know any of them personally, but if they are like other cadets I have met they are dedicated to a sense of honor and integrity that is rare in this world.
These people have chosen to serve. They serve you and me, and everyone who wants to eliminate them. They are willing to die for people who hate them. Who is going to protect them?
Does the non-discrimination policy protect those who chose to serve their country? Or does it discriminate against those people? If our "non-discrimination" policy discriminates, then shouldn't it eliminate itself?
Maybe then we could all get together and try to discuss our ethical gray areas rather than try to legislate morality.
Thomas J. Barber, Jr. G