systems (Argentina, India, Iran, Iraq,nNorth Korea, and Syria) would requirena substantial military effort to subdue.nBut in the current domestic politicalnenvironment, the United States willnnot take the steps necessary to create ornmaintain a military capability of sufficientnglobal reach to protect its interests.nIt thus risks becoming a largernversion of Kuwait, a nation of greatnwealth but with major assets left exposed.nThe plundering process startednlong ago (OPEC’s 1973 grab in thenwake of America’s retreat from Vietnamnbeing the most obvious) but willnnow accelerate. Those who believenthat they can trade iron for gold end upnwith neither.n— William R. HawkinsnHARVARD UNIVERSITY, inn1959, refused more than $350,000 innmoney offered for student loans by thenNational Defense Education Act innthe wake of the Soviets’ Sputnik shocknbecause of the requirement that studentsnsubmit to an oath and an affidavitnof loyalty and noncommunist affiliation.nHarvard President Nathan B.nPusey stated that the demand singlednout college students as a group notnworthy of the nation’s trust. It wouldnhave been possible to interpret thenNDEA requirement differently, butnPusey was in harmony with the oldnacademic and professional traditionnMOVING?nrnLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form with the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to:nSubscription Department, Cinonides,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, Illinoisn61054.nName ^nAddressnCitynStaten8/CHRONICLESnwhich contended that higher educationnpresupposes adherence to certain standardsnof personal integrity and academicnaccomplishment.nSince then, the old idea that educationnincludes moral education has sufferednsome harsh blows. Recently, followingnan earlier decision by thenStudent Council, the Harvard FacultynCouncil recommended “that Harvardnend its remaining connection withnROTC within two years unless thenDefense Department drops its discriminatorynpolicies against gay and lesbiannapplicants for cadets.” The Harvardnfaculty “downgraded” ROTC from anfor-credit to an extracurricular programnin 1969, but allowed students to participatenin M.I.T.’s ROTC program (91nstudents m 1989-90). In April 1989,nthe Harvard Student Council first approved,nthen rejected proposals tonbring the ROTC back to Harvard on ancredit basis, the rejection coming innresponse to pressure from gay andnlesbian activists; At that time. PresidentnDerek Bok replied to a query by thisneditor explaining that there was verynlittle demand for ROTC at Harvard,nbut failing to answer the question ofnwhether, and if yes, why, it was thenuniversity’s policy to demand that thenDepartment of Defense change itsnstand on homosexuality.nIn some areas, as pointed out by onenof Harvard’s 1990 honorary degreenrecipients, David Riesman, “DereknBok has been a man of stamina andnseriousness who has stood firm againstnpolitical pressure, as in appointing andean of the Law School over thenwishes of many in the Critical LegalnStudies group.” There is no doubt thatnas president of the nation’s oldest university,nBok has been subjected tonimmense pressure to make symbolicnconcessions and statements of manynkinds. But the university has totallyncaved in on the issues of sexual moralitynin general and of homosexuality innparticular.nThis leads to one of the curiousnmoral anomalies of our day: we see onnall sides a moralistic crusade againstnevery aspect of cigarette manufacturenand use, on the grounds that cigarettensmoking creates real health risks, butnthis oral zeal for tobacco purity isnaccompanied by benign tolerance ofnand even support for sexual practicesnthat promote ever graver risks. On Maynnn18, Bok announced • the university’sndetermination to divest itself of all stocknin firms that manufacture tobacconproducts, “motivated,” in Bok’s words,n”by a desire not to be associated as anshareholder with companies engagednin significant sales of products thatncreate a substantial and unjustified risknof harm to other human beings.” Apparently,nHarvard has no qualms aboutnattempting to force the E)efense Departmentnto acquiesce in practices thatncreate a “substantial and unjustifiednrisk of harm to other human beings,”nnor with being an advocate or patron,nnot merely a passive shareholder.nAlthough Harvard carries the wordnVeritas (truth) in its seal, ringed by thenexpression, Christo et ecclesiae (fornChrist and the church), its currentnofficial posture not merely repudiatesntraditional Christian values but in effectnacts as though they had nevernexisted, and ignores the Veritas aboutnthe social, psychological, and medicalnconsequences of practices such asnthose which biblical morality forbids. Itnis true that some traditionalist Christians,nespecially fundamentalists andnsome of the newer religious communities,nhave long condemned tobacconsmoking, but most Christians and Jewsnhave regarded it with tolerance if notnoutright affection, and the present antismokingnmovement has littie to do withnreligion.nHarvard seems to be changing itsnmotto from pro Christo et ecclesiae toncontra Christum et ecclesiam. In viewnof the broadening, over three and a halfncenturies, of the school’s spiritual basento accept other religious traditions, onenwould hardly expect the Harvard ofntoday to stand pro Christo. But contranChristum et ecclesiam? The universitynmaintains a divinity school with a distinguishednfaculty as well as a universitynchurch and a Christian ministry. Butnthese institutions touch only a minoritynof the university community, and thenstand taken by the Harvard FacultynCouncil addresses not merely thenwhole university community but thenfederal government and the whole ofnsociety.nAlthough at today’s Harvard — as atnmany other centers of higher learningn— tolerance is demanded for acts thatntraditional Jewish and Christian moralitynhas consistently disapproved, nonsimilar tolerance is shown to those whon