Whenever I encounter animus toward the military at Yale, it is almost always born of ignorance. Students often cite the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays in the military as a justification for the ban on R.O.T.C. They are far more sympathetic when I explain that such policies are enacted by Congress, and that the military has no choice but to comply.Yes, because it's not like there was a concerted effort on the part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prevent Clinton's efforts to overturn the ban. A majority of active duty servicemembers don't support DADT and the military certainly doesn't have a culture of homophobia that the ban acts to codify. This is something that Congress did to them.
But that isn't even what bothers me the most about this. What really irks me is that he never seems to entertain the possibility that one - just one - of his students at Yale might be gay, that one of these people he's proselytizing to about the virtues of ROTC might be barred from participating. And assuming the class he taught was of average size (20-40 students), that's almost certainly the case, especially in institutions like Yale or Harvard where a disproportionate number of students are gay. I wish he could appreciate how insulting this attempt to dress up the military as some kind of martyr is to those who are systematically rejected by it. I wish he would acknowledge that for a non-trivial number of students, DADT is not an ideological basis for objection to ROTC, but a personal one.
Obviously, the US military, like any other employer with discriminatory hiring practices, should be banned by universities from recruiting. That shouldn't even be a question. But if people like Harbaugh are going to make the case for allowing bigoted employers on campus, they should at least acknowledge that gays and lesbians are part of the conversation.