Harvard vs. Texas A&M: Which shares your values?

[Drizzt]

Harvard vs. Texas A&M: Which shares your values?
Published October 12, 2001



This is a tale of two college campuses and a Rorschach test for Americans to decide where they fit along the nation's cultural divide.

It's corny vs. cool, instinctive patriotism vs. deeply ingrained political correctness.

It's Texas A&M vs. Harvard.

Despite my Harvard background, I come down squarely with the Aggies.

My guess is that most Americans will, too, even those who might be embarrassed to admit it, until they think about the two schools and themselves.

Harvard ended funding for, and kicked off campus, the Reserve Officers' Training Corps, which provides financial aid to students who receive training and become military officers. It did so in 1995 because the Pentagon prohibits homosexuals from openly serving in the military.

Harvard, whose students can take ROTC at nearby schools, apparently believes that promoting gay rights takes precedence over the national defense.

At A&M, the military is part of a culture that reveres family, football and, in times past, making fun of New Yorkers.

But after the Sept. 11 attack, students at the working-class university devised a uniquely Aggie way to raise more than $150,000 for the victims, most of whom are from New York. Harvard students, with presumably greater financial resources, did nothing comparable.

A&M students sold 70,000-plus T-shirts proclaiming "Standing Up For America," in patriotic colors. The school's triple-decker, 82,000-seat football stadium was color-coded, the top in red, middle in white and the bottom in blue for the next game. It was one patriotic television picture.

Admittedly, these are not exact comparisons, but the anecdotes illustrate the cultural differences between Harvard and A&M, and, to an uncomfortable degree, between Ivy League elites and most of America.

Harvard is, well, Harvard, the nation's most-prestigious university. But it's a snooty place where many, although by no means all, look down on the rest of America as intellectually inferior and unsophisticated.

I spent two semesters there as a Neiman Fellow, taking advantage of a generous university program that allows mid-career journalists to sample its rich academic offerings.

At the time, shortly after Ronald Reagan's election as president, the campus consensus was that he had duped the country. Americans, the Harvard group-think argued, would return to traditional liberalism soon. That view was out of touch then, as now.

Fast-forward to today, when Harvard is among elite colleges where the view that U.S. foreign policy gave Osama bin Laden reason for his terrorism appears to be more than a fringe opinion. The Associated Press reports that "a recent peace rally [on campus] drew several times more students than a patriotism rally."

At A&M, this year rated the nation's 15th best public university by U.S. News & World Report, the T-shirts symbolize an instinctive belief in America and its values. Students and faculty there have the common sense to distinquish between foreign policy and murder.

The reality is that the comparison between Harvard and Texas A&M illustrates the heirarcy of institutional values.

At Harvard -- and I'm being generous to the school's students and faculty -- there is an underlying skepticism about the virtues of the U.S. military and unabashed patriotism. Some argue that hostility is a more accurate term.

Many at Harvard and similar institutions say that most Americans don't understand the complex nature of the issue. But they're wrong. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem.

The Harvard detachment from the military, symbolized by its looney ROTC policy, is one reason that students, faculty and administrators take an academic view of the situation. Many see flag-waving patriotism as wrongly judgmental about the superiority of the American way of life.

And Harvard is not alone. Other elite educational institutions, such as Yale and Cal-Berkeley, display similar attitudes, especially when compared with most of the nation's campuses and communities.

At A&M, as in most of America, the students and faculty believe national defense takes priority over pushing gay rights. And despite, what some of my liberal friends will argue, this view has nothing to do with anti-gay bigotry.

It has to do with common sense. When the nation is attacked, internal squabbles about policy nuances pale in comparison.

Times like these make me wish Harvard played serious football so I could root against them on TV. You can be sure that I will be pulling for the Aggies.

Peter A. Brown can be reached at 407-420-5276 or pbrown@orlandosentinel.com

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...on%2Dheadlines

[ahenry]

I’ve got just three words to say to that: Whoop!

**what can I say, I are an Aggie**



Aaron Henry
Texas A&M '00

[David Scott]

Still waiting for a firearms tie-in. The link via ROTC is rather tenuous.

In any case, must this be an either/or? May I not support both a strong national defense and gay people's right to contribute to that defense? It's their country too.

Dave Scott
Texas A&M (Corpus Christi) '80.

[kjm]

My only critique is that I am currently a student seeking a degree in History (at TAMU), and the history department with a few exceptions is the same ol' liberals. I suppose the best thing that can be said is they realize on what campus they are, and they do not say or do the outrageous things I've heard happening on other campus'. That being said, if you do want to go to A&M, and get a few conservative history classes, go to Blinn where the entire history department is a seething hotbed of rabid conservatism. It keeps things in balance.



...and for a firearms tie-in, College station is lacking a good shooting range close-by, forcing all of those patriotic students to go all the way to Arrowhead range halfway to Hearn. That is a shame no?

[PWK]

Mr. Scott no such requirement as firearm related is placed on this forum.
Legal and Political
"Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues."

Yes gays can contribute to national defence they just need to keep their mouth shut about their sexual orientation. There is more than sufficient evidence to indicate that both those who are openly gay or female do much to damage combat effectiveness, especially in front line situations.
TAMU '78

[Don Gwinn]

Even in L&P, this thread is teetering on the borderline. We'll leave it for now, but if it turns into a flamefest referendum on homosexuality, it's gone.

[Zundfolge]

Despite my Harvard background, I come down squarely with the Aggies.

Why is it that every jackass I've ever met who went to Harvard feels the need to make sure they tell you they went to Harvard within the first 5 sentences of a conversation

[kjm]

Aggies don't have to tell you where they went. They have "THE ring."

[Skorzeny]

Sure, it's popular to demonize "Harvard liberals," because chances are the majority of the population did not attend Harvard (or any one of the eight Ivy League universities).

Are there left-wing people in the elite educational institutions? Yes, undoubtedly so. In fact, it may even be that a big majority of faculty and administration members and possibly students are left-leaning.

Nonetheless, there are people of every political affiliation and hue at such universities. And, despite what some people might think on ideological grounds, such universities are valuable, and maybe even essential, because they allow top students in the country (of whatever political affiliation) to come together and "bang heads" with each other.

The creative, scientific and brilliant impulses that are generated at these places are undoubtedly valuable and indispensable for this country.

And remember, these universities don't ask for political affiliation when they admit students - they select the best and the brightest (adjusted for "affirmitive" action, of course).

Skorzeny

[westex]

Don
I've never understood all this "sensitivity" about discussion of homosexuality creeping into threads here.

I've never seen warnings about rapists, terroists, LEOs or numerous other non-protected groups being accorded special dispensation. Always seemed a little biased to me. But maybe I just don't understand the "unwritten rules" on the General Discussion and/L&P forums, but that's the story of my life.

[rock_jock]

"Nonetheless, there are people of every political affiliation and hue at such universities. And, despite what some people might think on ideological grounds, such universities are valuable, and maybe even essential, because they allow top students in the country (of whatever political affiliation) to come together and "bang heads" with each other. "

The classic view of a college campus is one of bright young minds engaging in spirited debate on contentious issues for the purpose of expanding their intellect and challenging their views. Unfortunately, this has not been the case for several decades. Today's modern campus in America is one of hostility and suspicion, with a code of accepted thought and behavior. It is much like the Taliban, with swift retaliation for any infraction of political correctness. Just read the college newspapers, and more importantly, read the stories about the college newspapers. Read how the latest tactic of the new left is to steal student newspapers and throw them away if they contain articles or op-ed pieces which question any aspect of leftist doctrine. Harvard and most other Ivy League colleges are no more open to outside thought than is Osama bin Laden.

Brian Levin
Texas A&M '88

[LawDog]

Westex, there are certain topics which have, in our experience, always turned into flame-fests; topics such as abortion, the 'one true religion' and so on.

These topics usually wind up with Staff working over-time, warning e-mails taking up a lot of bandwidth, hate and discontent getting spread thick and far, people who are -- or would be -- friends hating each other, people saying things they really can't take back, and Members wind up getting banned.

Losing situation, all the way around.

Therefore, an Executive Decision was made at The Highest Levels to gently avoid some topics.

Hope that helps.

LawDog

[Zander]

"...and gay people's right to contribute to that defense?"

Sorry, there is no such right...it's a privilege.

And the military isn't even a democracy, much less a representative republic.

Either follow the rules or find some other way to contribute. Lying to enter the military as a homosexual betrays a trust and wastes my tax dollars. Similar offenses end in courts martial and dishonorable discharge. So should these.

It's as simple as that, IMO.

[geegee]

I believe it was northeastern intellectual (and pillar of the modern conservative movement) William F. Buckley, who said "I would rather be governed by the first 100 names picked from the Cambridge phone book, than Harvard University's Board of Regents." This, from one who knows the Harvard midset very well. geegee

[Destructo6]

I think JFK said something to the effect that the only reason to attend Harvard was to become unimpressed with those that graduated from Harvard.

[Skorzeny]

Didn't stop Buckley and Kennedy from going there, though, did it?

No doubt there is much political correctness at elite universities. But my observation has been that "non-elite" state universities have plenty of it as well.

BTW, there is an interesting case of political correctness vs. freedom of speech of sorts at one of the Ivies. At Brown University (long considered one of the most left-wing elite Northeastern universities), there was a debate within the school newspaper (Brown Daily Herald, I think) whether or not to publish an advertisement from someone, an outsider, who purportedly opposed reparations to descendants of black slaves and made "insensitive" remarks in the ad about blacks. He happened to be a "politically-charged" person.

Now, the newspaper had every right to refuse to run the ad (just like any private newspaper or TV station). But after much soul searching, the largely left-wing editorial staff decided to accept the ad. Their conclusion was that they could not afford intellectually to only accept politically correct or politically "acceptable" ads - to let it run and let the readers decide for themselves.

There was a firestorm of an opposition to this from some groups within the university, most notably black students. So, some of them decided to steal the newspapers before they could be picked up by other students.

I suppose these students expected sympathy from the rest of the student body for opposing a politically incorrect ad and a politically incorrect decision by the editoral staff for deciding to accept the ad. But to their dismay, almost the entire campus turned against their action and vocally supported the editorial staff. In the aftermath, the editor-in-chief stated that while he personally opposed views of the person who paid for the ad, he wanted to run it and let the ad speak for itself and let the readers judge it. And that, despite his disagreement with the ad itself and the firestorm of criticism he experienced from some students, he'd do it again. He also thanked the majority of the students who supported his decision and who condemned the illegal thefts for recognizing and respecting why he ran the ad.

So, despite the stereotypical representation of political correctness run amok, these principled actions do occur in the Ivory Tower.

My impression of the elite universities has been that most students are general not left-leaning, but apolitical and apathetic. It just happens to be that most of the left-leaning students tend to be more vocal, and therefore, more easily recognized and picked up by the media than the generally quieter right-leaning students and quieter still apathetic students.

Skorzeny

[Bob Locke]

I didn't even have to read the article to answer THAT one!

I should have taken that ROTC scholarship.....

[westex]

Wm. F. Buckley attended Yale and authored, "God and man at Yale".

[bullet44]

Most people call aggie's, "Boss".

[Fred Hansen]

rock_jock: Right on the money.

Zander: Exactly right.

W.F. Buckley Jr.: Genius

Texas A&M: Priceless

God bless Texas

[Big Lou]

Gotta go with the Aggies on almost all issues.

Nice to see that some universities aren't completely full of ultra-liberal, polictically-correct, whiners.

[Skorzeny]

westex:

Of course you are right! Buckley did go to Yale. Funny thing is, Yale is considered far more "liberal" than Harvard.

Skorzeny

[David Scott]

Zander wrote:

Sorry, there is no such right...it's a privilege.

And the military isn't even a democracy, much less a representative republic.

Either follow the rules or find some other way to contribute. Lying to enter the military as a homosexual betrays a trust and wastes my tax dollars. Similar offenses end in courts martial and dishonorable discharge. So should these.

It's as simple as that, IMO.

I shall correct one bit of terminology; defending one's country is neither a right nor a privilege, it's a duty.

I never suggested that gays should lie in order to enter military service. What I do suggest is that the military should drop its ban on gays in service, as sexual orientation has nothing to do with the performance of a soldier, sailor, airman or marine.

[Zander]

"I never suggested that gays should lie in order to enter military service."

But you find it acceptable nonetheless. Any means to an end, eh?

"What I do suggest is that the military should drop its ban on gays in service,..."

The military can't be interested in sanctioning PC nonsense, much less where homosexuals with a penchant for advocacy are concerned. It has a war to fight.

"...as sexual orientation has nothing to do with the performance of a soldier, sailor, airman or marine."

That's not what our military leaders say. They say homosexuals with a sexual preference for their bunkmates are damaging to unit cohesiveness.

And of course they are correct...

[LawDog]

The title is about the difference between Harvard and Texas A&M.

We are now off on gays in the military.

Major thread veer.

Lights out.

LawDog