ROTC debate must focus on community

The debate over whether or not we should ban ROTC at Princeton need not involve facts about national attitudes or arguments that envision consequences that go beyond this campus. One's stance on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy can quite easily be rendered irrelevant in this debate. I am not saying that the national policy should go unchallenged.In fact, I urge the numerous students who have argued that banning ROTC would not contribute meaningfully to the eradication of "don't ask, don't tell" to imagine other ways in which they could take up the cause. But the point still stands: until openly gay citizens are allowed to serve in the armed forces, we should suspend the University's ROTC program, and we do not have to look beyond FitzRandolph Gate for a reason.

I have heard someone ask, "Why should we ban ROTC on campus when doing so will not have an effect on national policy?" I tend to believe that such an act would have ramifications beyond Princeton, but regardless of that fact, we should not, and in many cases do not, set University policy with prevailing national sentiments in mind. For instance, we pay University service employees a wage that is, while perhaps not ideal, better than what the market offers.

We should not see this sort of policy as proof that we have a better sense of justice than the nation at large or the communities outside Princeton's gates, but rather that we operate under different circumstances — in this case budgetary — and happen to be in a position where we can afford to pay our workers better than the federal or state minimum wage.

This is not to imply that the state governments or federal government should leave such issues as a living wage up to private institutions. The primary purpose of passing such a measure is not to condemn an external policy or make a political statement, but to acknowledge that particular measure's positive value for the campus community. We pay our employees better because we think that higher wages are a good that benefits the entire campus community, not because we hope that our actions will motivate the government to significantly raise the minimum wage. We should view the ROTC debate similarly, examining the effects of "don't ask, don't tell" on our own community, not the nation.

When applied to a college campus like Princeton, with its relatively small student body, intimate living arrangements and centralized social space (i.e. the Street), "don't ask, don't tell" does not constitute a viable option for homosexual students who want to serve in ROTC, since the line between private and public life is significantly blurred.Going into New York or other more accepting communities on the weekends is not the sort of "private" alternative that a university that professes to be a tight-knit community should offer these students. So a statement like, "At least with this policy homosexuals have some sort of opportunity" just doesn't hold up. "Don't ask, don't tell" may very well be an impossible demand to make of any citizen, but it most certainly is for gay Princetonians. If we proceed with the ban, those students who wish to participate in ROTC will be asked to make a sacrifice, but as a better columnist than I recently argued, if we are to be any sort of community we must be willing as individuals to forego our most preferred opportunities if they are denied to others, in service of the greater good. That is the essence of community. We compromise and make sacrifices for those we care about and for some we don't even know throughout life. There is no compelling reason why we should forget that obligation to community the moment we plop our bags down in a bare freshman dorm.

If ROTC remains on campus, and we continue to tacitly endorse its discriminatory policy, I would question if we could even call ourselves a community. When a minority, no matter how small, is threatened and unable to adhere to a particular lifestyle that does not significantly affect the wellbeing of others, we all suffer. Much of our education here happens outside of the classroom, and a tolerant and engaged community is essential to making these four years a challenging and invigorating life experience.

Particularly in relation to our social interactions, when the majority's norms are increasingly defined in opposition to the behavior of a specific minority, we all suffer. And while the presence of ROTC is probably not the impetus for the community-threatening homophobia on campus, the student body's decision to ban ROTC would send a message to LGBT students that there is only one community here and that they are a part of it. Freddie LaFemina is a history major from North Massapequa, N.Y. He can be reached at lafemina@princeton.edu.