ROTC's future to be discussed

Questions about the future of the University's ROTC program have surfaced once again with the recent publication of the Commission on Strengthening the Community's preliminary report earlier this month. The report's lack of information on the present -- and future -- state of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program has frustrated students, faculty and administrators, especially members of the lesbian, gay and bisexual communities on campus. Much of this discontent stems from the inactivity of the Committee to Review the Status of ROTC at Penn, formed this fall by Interim Provost Marvin Lazerson. According to Statistics Professor John deCani, the Committee's chairperson, the group met twice during the fall semester. At their second meeting, though, members decided they did not understand their task. The result of the confusion was a meeting between committee members and Lazerson earlier this month to clarify ambiguities in their charge. A page-long list of questions which Lazerson would like the Committee to address "at minimum" was printed in yesterday's Almanac. The list addresses the issues dealing with the University's relationship with ROTC, the range of possible alternatives for the ROTC program and the consequences of such alternate arrangements. It does not include a timetable for the Committee's work, however. Mathematics graduate student Andrew Nestler, the graduate student representative to the Commission's student life working group, said he is "disturbed" by the prolonged inaction of the Committee, because it was originally directed to produce a recommendation by April. Nestler added that the original University Council resolution, recommending the removal of ROTC from campus by June 1993, was passed in 1990. In April 1991, a similar resolution was passed by the Faculty Senate Committee on Conduct -- and again approved by University Council -- but the June 1993 deadline for ROTC's removal has passed without action by the University. Nestler said he believes it is "unprecedented for the University not to act on a repeated resolution," although he understands the problems with ROTC policy come from the Defense Department. "The new [don't ask-don't tell] policy doesn't affect the way a lesbian, gay or bisexual person can express themselves in ROTC," he said. "It doesn't allow them to express themselves freely any more safely than under the old policy." Nestler added that his working group proposed action on ROTC during Commission meetings, but said the group was advised by Chairperson Gloria Chisum that "since ROTC is a complicated issue which currently has its own committee, it could not be studied [by our group]." "These reasons seemed tenuous to me," Nestler said. "There are plenty of issues the Commission is discussing that are complicated -- these include diversity education, hiring practices, the fraternity system and racism." "The Commission has used the results of many past and present University committees as great sources of information for study," he added. "I do not see why the existence of a standing committee to examine a complicated issue should preclude the examination of that issue by the Commission." Robert Schoenberg, coordinator of the Program for Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Community at Penn, shared Nestler's skepticism. "It's distressing that the Commission on Strengthening the Community, which was charged with examining and addressing issues which divide the campus, did not even look at the ROTC issue," he said. "I am sure the [new ROTC] committee will do its work, but I am skeptical that the University will respect their recommendation," Schoenberg added. He said while he is concerned about students who depend on ROTC to fund their University education, "other arrangements need to be made for these students so that the University can adhere to its principles of non-discrimination."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.