It has been over 30 years since Stanford’s campus served as host for an ROTC program, and it is time for this political blockade to cease. In 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, our faculty senate threw out the ROTC program—stripping its instructors of faculty status and refusing to credit ROTC courses—arguing the curriculum was “awful…sophomoric.” Furthermore, they claimed that the lack of Ph.D.s among ROTC faculty was proof of its academic ineligibility.

However, Stanford now gives credit in many courses without PhD instructors (e.g. language, PWR, history), and it goes without saying that one can receive activity units here through unconventional means (posture class, anyone?). So now that our seemingly impregnable academic standards have been undercut with these lax measures, it’s time for our administration to fess up—ROTC was removed because of political concerns. To the faculty: yah, Vietnam sucked, and I’m sorry you felt so helpless that you took out your frustrations on the students of Stanford and their academic and professional opportunities. You must really feel important now that you’re sending tens of kids per year to other campus ( Berkeley , SJ State, Santa Clara ) to pur­sue an education that at some schools (including Princeton and MIT) is an accepted part of the curriculum.

But, unsurprisingly, the faculty (and some trustees) has ditched the sinking ship that was their previous argument—that the military is simply too stupid for Stanford—and are moving to a new one, much more in line with our PC-obsessed age. Now, the argument goes, the military is discriminatory. Mind you, our military is the most racially equitable meritocracy in the US —the general population to representation percentages among both enlisted and officer ranks are amazingly similar (by the way, over half of the women in the military are minorities). But if not race, then what could they possibly be discriminating against?

Ah, but we’re forgetting sexual discrimination, because the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is “oppressive” for those of alternative sexual orientations. There’s the rub—as long as the official military stance is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (a Clinton administration policy), the University can’t consciously allow its hateful discrimination upon our unsoiled campus—a beacon of light for all those who feel the need to broadcast their sexuality unhindered. However, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” applies to heterosexuals as well, and falls under the purview of the sexual harassment protocol. If someone in the professional office place were to brag about his/her sexual exploits, it would be considered improper and worthy of reprimand, regardless of the sexuality. Such conversations are simply incompatible with the professional working environment. And furthermore, as someone from a military fam­ily—I grew up on military bases across the country—I can personally attest that our military is a tolerant, accepting community. Military men and women are incredibly welcoming, and many are just seeking a better life for themselves and their family through the opportunities the military provides.

But forget all that if you’re a university administrator; the benefits of military experience for students of all backgrounds and beliefs are greatly outweighed by the horrible conditions created by its discriminatory policies. This policy, and the logic behind it, is ridiculous and quite simply a frantically-drawn straw in the fight to continue 30-year old politics. As long as our aging faculty have any sway on the process, the Vietnam-era resentment of the military will continue and the well-needed, Stanford-educated officer corps will go unfilled.