In the Crimson, Harry Lewis argues that it's high time for Harvard to normalize relations with ROTC.

The issue is not bringing an ROTC unit to Harvard. Units are merging today, not splitting. We should normalize Harvard’s relations with MIT ROTC. Harvard ought to pay its bills to MIT directly. It ought to bus our ROTC students as it buses our volleyball teams.

Lewis acknowledges, of course, the rationale for Harvard's ROTC ban—the military's discrimination against gays—but argues that Harvard's interaction with the military is more likely to erode that ban than its isolation from the military.

To quote Democratic Congressman Barney Frank ’61 (Massachusetts), speaking courageously some weeks ago on a related matter, “idealism that is empowered by pragmatism is the way in which we make progress.” We are part of American society and ROTC is sui generis, an exception to our rules about student activities.

This is a very tough issue, and Lewis is clearly trying to resolve it for all parties. And I agree that a greater connection between Harvard and the military would probably be good for Harvard, and might be good for the military.

But I wonder if it is not just Harvard hubris to suggest that the university's greater interaction with the military will do anything to change its discriminatory ways.

The current system is awkward, yes, and opens Harvard up to criticism from the right-wing and less ideological supporters of the military.

Still...if it were black people the military was shutting out...would we then say that it was acceptable for the military to recruit on campus?

Serious question.

So the question that follows is, What's the difference?

(Sadly, many African-Americans insist that there is a difference beyond the obvious one. They're wrong.)

The difference is that it's still more acceptable to discriminate against gays than it is against blacks.

And so I tend to come down on the side of saying, you know, awkward as the current situation is, it's the best of various bad solutions...