Today we’re inaugurating BloggerHeads, a weekly feature in which our bloggers will sit down to debate or discuss an important issue at Columbia. Today we debate ROTC.

The question of whether Columbia should lift its ban on ROTC has again come to the fore. In mid-September, the University Senate began reaching out to the student body to get a sense of where Columbians stand on the issue. And this past weekend, the Hamilton Society hosted the “Service and Society” forum, which explored the role of the military on college campuses. For our first BloggerHeads, we asked Derek Turner and James Dawson if Columbia should let ROTC back on campus.

James: So I re-read your column and am still mad about it. I don’t really think that Columbia students’ opposition to ROTC has much to do at all with this “anti-military bias.” At the end of the day ROTC is a passive issue for most students, something that they really wouldn’t care about either way. What sends them over the edge is the DADT element.

Derek: Well, after working a little with the campaign that tried to get ROTC back on campus in 2008, I learned that the military was banned from campus well before DADT was even in place. From what I understand, ROTC left Columbia in around 1969 because of anti-military attitudes among the student body. Because this means that the military was off campus for a good 24 years before Clinton came up with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” I hesitate to buy into the idea that ROTC is off campus simply because of DADT.

James: It may be true that ROTC left campus in 1969 because of “anti-military attitudes,” but that was at the height of the Vietnam War and barely a year after the ’68 protests. To say that these same motivations are responsible for ROTC’s continued absence from campus is a huge leap. What stands in the way of their return to Columbia is not some ambiguous, latent “anti-military” bias. It’s DADT.

Derek: Perhaps there’s some truth to that. But for me, even if DADT does not get repealed (which it almost certainly will in the near future) I believe the right way to engage an organization like ROTC is to first of all allow it on campus. Imagine how much more of an impact Columbia students could have on policies like DADT if they were given the opportunity to get “inside” the organization. It’s safe to say they would have a bigger impact than right now, when our only way of being activists is collective verbal protest from the outside.

James: I’m really having trouble with your argument that Columbia students could “have an impact” by “getting ‘inside’” ROTC. Obviously the student body is composed of two groups: those who favor ROTC’s return and those who don’t. Those who favor the return can already “get inside” ROTC by joining it at Fordham; those who don’t favor the return would never join the organization if it returned to campus. Even if ROTC were allowed back, it’s not as if a bunch of gay and lesbian Columbians would suddenly saddle up with the organization. Many of these folks viscerally hate DADT, such that the very thought of joining the military occurs to them as anathema—and rightly so. The policy is archaic, bigoted, ignorant, and obsolete.

Derek: Referencing Fordham’s opportunities as solutions to our own deficiencies is as akin to telling the hunger strikers back in ’08 that if they really wanted to take the classes they wanted Columbia to adopt they could take them at City College or the New School. But that’s another story.

I think ultimately, our banning ROTC only hurts Columbia. The ROTC program is a huge opportunity for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds to attend schools like Columbia. If we’re serious about making our education available to everyone, then why are we effectively barring ROTC-interested students from coming here? It’s not as if we’re somehow compelling the US military to change by our banning them. The only ones who really lose out in this situation are potential students.

James: I think you badly underestimate the impact that these types of bans have. The press pays attention when this nation’s finest universities—schools like Columbia and Harvard—stand up to bigotry.

And let’s talk about Lieutenant Dan Choi for a second. I was there when Choi gave Harry Reid his West Point ring at Netroots Nation last summer, and it was pretty moving to watch. I think Choi’s brand of activism is a great example of why you’re wrong on this whole inside/outside issue. When Choi was on the inside, he couldn’t openly talk about DADT or his sexual orientation—it would have resulted in an even quicker discharge. I agree that his work since the discharge has been important, but that work all took place outside, not inside, the military’s apparatus.

Derek: When it comes to the inside/outside argument, I think you’re a little too willing to pat our student body on the back for upholding the ban. In all of the national dialogue surrounding the pending repeal of DADT, I have heard very little about the effect of university bans on ROTC. On the contrary, I have encountered numerous instances of people on the inside who have taken a stand and are more effectively serving the anti-DADT cause.

Do you really think Dan Choi could have had nearly as big of an impact if he had never joined the military? Imagine if he hadn’t joined and simply protested from the outside. How much change would he have brought about? Like Lt. Choi, we need to recognize that engaging the system directly is one of the most powerful ways of changing it

James: Look, Derek, I think you’re burying the lead. Let me ask you this: Do you think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is an acceptable policy? Do you think that it sends a good message about equality? Do you really want to be that guy who’s stuck explaining to his grandkids somewhere down the road that he was A-Okay with invidious, malicious, ignorant discrimination? 

The policy isn’t okay, Derek. It’s wrong. Let’s not lose sight of that.

I’m sure you’ve heard the MLK quote that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” It’s a cliché, sure. But it’s true, and it goes a long way towards explaining why this issue is pretty cut-and-dry to me, and to a lot of other folks at Columbia.

Derek: While your grandfather image is poignant, I think it can go both ways. As it stands, the only thing I’ll have to lament is that my Alma Mater stood by and limited itself to talk when it could have acted. This “invidious, malicious, ignorant discrimination” isn’t something to shout about. It’s something to purposefully engage. This is where our paths separate, James. ROTC is not at all compelled to change as long as we don’t engage with it. 

Since you introduced a cliché with the MLK quote, allow me to make use of another —let us “agree to disagree.” Though I now have a better understanding of your viewpoint, I will continue to fight for ROTC to be allowed on campus as soon as possible. Though I hope you understand my reasoning, you will probably continue going after John McCain and the other 42 senators who stand in the way. Given your debating skill, I don’t envy Senator McCain.