Note From the Editor

A recent staff editorial took issue with Columbia’s policy on ROTC and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

The editorial has generated various responses, positive and negative, the voicing of which I appreciate and encourage. I believe our condemnation of DADT was clear, but I want to use this chance to apologize to those whom the editorial may have offended. It was intended to convey the belief that Columbia should meet the needs of all its students. This includes the needs of those who desire to enlist in the ROTC program—but this also includes the needs of those who believe ROTC violates basic human rights.

The ROTC issue can extend to many others, including questions of how homosexuality is accepted in this country, or how the military is managed. The editorial meant to avoid these, as there are many unexplored gray areas in this complex issue.

In addition, the printing in our previous issue of a News column that also addressed Columbia’s ROTC policy may have raised suspicions of bias or collusion. Like many publications Spectator categorically maintains a divide between the Opinion and News sections, and the timing of the two pieces was a coincidence. A News column allows the writer more room for speculation than an article, but the piece must still be based on factual evidence. I stand by the column as it points out the mounting public dialogue—real, misinformed, cynical, or other—that suggests a clash could occur between Columbia and the Solomon Amendment. Such a clash could affect Columbia’s federal funding. But then again it could not.

I hope crucial dialogue, such as that about access to affordable higher education, the U.S. military, human rights and human decency, will continue to thrive.