In service of the Nation's Service

The administration should be commended for its support of the United States Armed Services and its refusal to follow the trend set by our "peer" institutions in preventing the military from recruiting on campus (See "Defying Trend U. supports ROTC", February 7). Despite the recent court rulings that the Solomon Amendment — a 1996 law that denied federal funding for those schools that did not allow military recruiters on campus — is unconstitutional, the University has realized that kicking military recruiters off campus would run entirely counter to our mission and philosophy as an educational institution. Nevertheless, though the University has not outlawed military recruitment on campus, it has still spoken out publicly against the amendment.

Though the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policies are understandably offensive to certain members of the University community, it would not be right for any university to ban military recruiters based on this policy. There are three reasons why the University should support the Solomon Amendment, each of which in and of itself would be a valid reason for the University to change its public stance.

Firstly, no University should deny its students the opportunity to pursue that which they choose. As a senior who has recently gone through the job application process, I found that it is tremendously difficult to pursue career choices that are not available on "Tiger Tracks," the career services' sponsored website. Many of my classmates have echoed this sentiment. Any University that denies its students the ability to easily pursue military careers is clearly doing a tremendous disservice to those students.

Secondly, denying military recruiters the right to pitch their jobs at these schools is unquestionably an attack on free speech. It is rather ironic that these universities are using free speech defenses to justify their opposition to the Solomon Amendment, when in reality they are denying a voice with which they disagree the chance to be heard. John Leo, a columnist for U.S. News and World Report, provided a rather apt analogy for this scenario: "It is the rough equivalent of a bookstore's refusing to sell books with which it disagrees. The store may have the right to do so, but it's a tacky tactic that shows little respect for allowing people to make their own choices." Though certain members of the community consider the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy morally repugnant, this does not give them the legal right to silence the military's voice.

Finally, there is no question that the current needs of the United States Armed Forces are very high. While Princeton specifically claims to be "in the nation's service," I do not doubt that many universities would consider that part of their mission as well. How can we deny those who give their lives to protect us an opportunity to recruit more selfless individuals who are willing to sacrifice their lives for us as well? Do they not deserve an opportunity to participate equally in the recruiting process?

Princeton has recently made national headlines for our crusade against grade inflation. Dean Malkiel has often been quoted as saying that we are providing an example for our peer institutions to follow, that we are leading the way in a noble quest, of sorts. Supporting free speech and our military is a much nobler quest, however, than ensuring that hardworking Ivy League students are not receiving too many A's. I challenge the administration, then, to truly take a role as a leader among our peers by championing the cause of the Solomon Amendment in its likely Supreme Court battle. Only then can Princeton can begin to live up to its reputation of being "in the Nation's service." Nitesh Paryani is a senior in the Politics department. He can be reached at nparyani@princeton.edu.