Subject: Re: rotc
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 92 02:26:14 EST

Correct, the Trustees of MIT have never made a formal decision
on the issue, and their permission is necessary to remove ROTC.  However,
the President of MIT has at least briefed them on his stand, and the
Chairman of the Board said, at the faculty meeting at which the faculty
approved the resolution, that he thought the resolution was constructive.
Officially, then, there is no division within the administration on MIT's
stand.  Of course, the Provost did appoint one of the most cautious
members of the ROTC committee (a closet case, wouldn't you know it?) to
head the committee that's supposed to get other schools together to lobby
to change the policy, and I didn't even know about that committee till I
read about it in the campus newspaper--even though I was the one who had
brought the whole thing up to begin with.  So that tells you something
about MIT's resolve.

	I'll send you a copy of the resolution but I need your snail-mail
address.

	Thanks for the info!		All the best, David

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Subject: ROTC at MIT: here's the story
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 92 18:31:16 EST

Hi Scott,

	My name is Joe Melvin and I am one of two student members of the MIT 
President's advisory committee on ROTC.  The function of the committee is 
to advise the President on policy issues as they relate to ROTC at MIT - as
well as to our "crosstown" arrangements with Harvard, Tufts and Wellesely - 
and to deal with the day-to-day administrative concerns of the three
ROTC commanders (army, navy, air force) and the Institute administration.
My function on the committee is to act as the non-ROTC student advocate
(my student cohort on ROTCcom is a Navy cadet).  It may be of interest
to you that I am indeed gay.

Let me give you a brief and somewhat sketchy history of ROTC at MIT as it
pertains to the DOD policy:
	Prior to 1989 the committee was practically dormant.  It met once
a year, maybe twice, for a token meeting to deal with the occasional 
administrative matter that couldn't be handled by one of the assistant
deans for undergraduate education.  The banquet of free food was the main
draw of the members to the meeting.
	Around late 1989, a committee headed by an MIT Prof named Vandiver 
published a report that gave a comprehensive overview of the ROTC program 
at MIT.  The report outlined several areas that the committee members felt
warranted a good looking-into.  One of these was the policy issue.  However,
there was not much immediate response by the faculty or administration to
the report, except to stamp it "confidential" and try to keep it a secret.
No sooner had the ink on the stamp dried than everyone and his dog acquired
a copy of it.
	Now, in the spring of 1990, the shit hit the fan.  Robb Bettiker, a 
senior and cadet in the Navy ROTC program, had come out to his CO the previous
fall.  He was of course immediately removed from the program.  This wasn't 
a big deal, however, since several similar episodes had happened in years
past - affecting only the raising of a few students' eyebrows and the wringing
of a few administrators' hands.  The big shock - and the catalyst for the 
turmoil which ensued - was the Department of the Navy's request (i.e. demand)
that Bettiker repay the government all of the money it had spent on his
schooling until that time, some $38,000.
	The student press ran with it.  A student group called Defeat
Discrimination at MIT (DDAMIT) which had actually been formed shortly
before the "Incident" (as it's now referred to in committee meetings)
swelled with throngs of angry students demanding that the administration 
do something.  That "something" evolved into a proposal that after a
5 year period of MIT doing its darn'dest to change things at the pentagon,
if the policy still existed in 1995, all entering Frosh beginning with 
the class of 1999 would be denied access to the ROTC program.  Then-Provost
John Duetch, a big-wig in military-academic circles, agreed after speaking
with the faculty advisor to DDAMIT, literature Professor David Halperin,
to pen a personal letter to Dick Cheney.  That now-famous "Dear Dick"
letter caught the eye of the national press, culminating in Robb's spot on 
NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw.  Just before the taping of the spot, Robb
learned that after "reviewing" his case, the DOD dropped its request.
	At its May meeting, the faculty gave a charge to the suddenly revived
ROTC committee to review the situation and come up with some proposal 
to resolve it. The committee (onto which I had managed to get myself appointed
when the whole mess was brewing) had already been working to find a 
respectable position on the matter that the faculty and administration 
should take.
	Then, at the worst possible time, the summer came.  Once fall rolled
around, many students were less zealous about the whole affair and many
faculty and administration hoped that the entire ugly scene would blow over.
DDAMIT hardcores still persisted though.  The committee did too.  Finally,
in October 1990, a compromise was reached between the committee and what was
left of DDAMIT.  The motion was placed before the faculty in their October
meeting and it was passed unanimously (with two abstentions) in voice vote.
I shall quote the relevant parts:

"We, the Faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, responding
to the conflict between the DoD and MIT policies regarding discrimination 
with regard to sexual orientation, request:

[1 and 2 aren't terribly interesting]

3) that the administration develop and undertake a five year program by
MIT individually and in collaboration with other schools to work for
reversal of DoD policy

4) that a task force be established by the President near the end of the
five year period to evaluate progress and to recommend a future course
of action, with the expectation that inadequate progress toward
eliminating the DoD policy on sexual orientation will result in:
	i) making ROTC unavailable to students beginning with the
	class entering in 1998
	ii) giving notice of the impending termination in all appropriate
	MIT publications beginning no later than the fall of 1996,
	should it be decided that ROTC is to be unavailable at MIT."

The resolution received explicit endorsement from the President, the 
Provost and the Chairman of the Corporation.

	Whew.  Now, I shall turn to your particular dilemma.  You stated that
an administrator at your school heard from a "trustee" that MIT had taken
no particular stance on the issue.  
	First, a point of clarification.  MIT refers to its governing 
body as "the Corporation."  This is what other schools refer to as a
"Board of Trustees."  The Corporation has around 100 members.  However,
the *real* decisions are made by the Executive Committee of the Corporation
which has among its ~10 members the President and the Provost, and is headed by
the Chairman of the Corporation.  All power for broad policy changes is
vested in the Corporation ExecCom.  Note that both the Provost and the 
President report to the Chairman, thus making the Chairman one 
promotion shy of God the Father in terms of real political power.
	It is likely that your administrator spoke to one of the 
extra-EcecCom members of the Corporation - many of whom are not 
remarkably in tune with some affairs of the Institute.  It is very
significant that the Chairman himself (a short portly 
gentleman named Paul Gray) stated his explicit support of the
resolution.  Understand that this resolution was passed by the
FACULTY, not the CORPORATION.  The Faculty does not have the final
word in this matter, but its united show of support was very powerful.
	Recent events at MIT have stalled any serious efforts to
change the policy.  First of all, we inagurated a new President shortly
after the resolution was passed and his settling-in took some time.
Then, if you've been reading your newspaper, you will know that MIT
is in hot water with the government right now because of an overly-zealous
Democrat from Michigan named John "the Ivy buster" Dingell.  No one
here at the moment is anxious to strain Cambridge-DC ties further with
talk of ROTC expulsion.
	In closing (finally), I have the following advice.  Confront
your pious administrator and query him as to his "trustee" source.
Inform him of the faculty's united and firm stand on the matter and
of the Corporation Chairman's explicit support of their resolution.
Even though the Corporation hasn't taken such a firm stand as the
Faculty, Paul Gray's comments at the meeting give some indication of
Corporation attitude.  Lastly, even though our administration has 
its hands full with with the government hearings right now, most
highly placed officials (especially the new President) are sympathetic
to our cause in spirit if not, for the moment, action.
	I would be happy to help you further in any way I can.  My
apologies for the verbosity of this response, but I tried not to leave 
anything out.  You can reach me at
	Joe Melvin
	[email-masked]
	(617)225-6669

Good Luck.