<p>Why</a> the Ivy League is Rethinking ROTC - TIME</p>
<p>"By uniting the best students and the best soldiers, advocates say, the schools and the military and the nation will grow stronger."</p>
<p>I support the reversal of this policy but I have a bit of a problem with the tone of the article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
At the same time, notes Allan Silver, a Columbia sociology professor who supports the return of ROTC despite what he calls its "abhorrent" policy on gays, having future soldiers live side by side with students who sometimes criticize them would encourage critical thinking and thereby strengthen the military. "
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The good professor is missing the fact that students would also be critizized and engaged in critical thinking.</p>
<p>Further, the best students are not all at Ivy league schools. Yes, this will enlargen the pool but it's not going to fundamentally change the quality of officers produced.</p>
<p>I'm a bit torn on this. On the one hand, I've met some pretty awesome people at my school who came here to do ROTC (not all of them continued with it, but that's another story), many of whom came from military families and have given me some interesting insight into how our military works and what military culture is like. On the other hand, keeping ROTC out of as many places as possible as long as Don't Ask Don't Tell continues seems important to me. DADT is a destructive and prejudiced policy, and I don't think we should be pushing schools to welcome an organization that discriminates.</p>
<p>I agree with pugmadkate that bringing ROTC to the Ivy League isn't going to affect how talented our military's officers are--there are more than enough smart people outside the Ivies and more than enough idiots inside the Ivies to make that aspect totally irrelevant.</p>
<p>Their endowments and donations are down. They need to have Uncle Sam pay for the tuition and R&B cost. Uncle pays full list price whereas most students pay a discounted price in some form.</p>
<p>Let us not forget that DADT was a step <em>forward</em> for the military.</p>
<p>I agree that DADT should be abolished, and that gays should be fully accepted in the military. Those who want a precedent can look at the Sacred Band of Thebes and Alexander the Great, to cite just two examples.</p>
<p>When that is accomplished, opening all schools to ROTC would help bring an end to the culture wars.</p>
<p>Ok, so my son is at West Point, and I hope the very bst of the country will join him at least for a while in the military. I think many would be surprised at the 'reflective ' approach the military has to their mission and life. Fundamentally they cannot fail in there efforts to protect and defend the constitution...</p>
<p>So for example DADT, I dont personally have an opinion, but if you cared to change the policy what would be better ... intelligent, educated ivy league (and other) students joining the military.. or shunning and refusing to have discourse on the issue (the current approach in my humble view)</p>
<p>Oh definitely, DADT was a <em>huge</em> step forward, sadly enough... I never fully appreciated what a big deal it was to tell the military they could no longer conduct witch-hunts against gay servicemembers until I read the amazing book Conduct Unbecoming. They really did used to conduct witch-hunts.</p>
<p>Once DADT is a thing of the past, I think ROTC would be an interesting addition to many campuses.</p>
<p>Banning ROTC at colleges because of DADT is idiotic. The military has no authority to repeal DADT. It is a federal law, passed by Congress. If you want it repealed, go to Congress, not the military.</p>
<p>Witch-hunts still go on. It is especially difficult for women military members. If they are sexually harrassed by a senior and decline that advance, then they run the danger of being reported as a lesbian. </p>
<p>Don't ask, don't tell is terrible policy. Any policy that leaves people open to being blackmailed is terrible policy. </p>
<p>I do believe we'll see it repealed. The military is ready. Just like in the civilian world, it's the older people who aren't ready and they are less of a factor with every passing day. For the younger military members (who make up the large majority of all active duty members), they don't understand the big deal as they have had openly gay classmates, friends and family.</p>
<p>interesting input. My son currently at WP said he knew a kid in his prep school program that was gay, but stayed in the closet/non participating becasue he wanted to be an army officer... </p>
<p>As a side note (this was news to me until recently) most officers at or past battalion commanders in the Army have to have a Master degree to advance... just FYI</p>
<p>ROTC should not be allowed because of DADT. It goes against the fiber of any institution that claims to be anti-discriminatory, which includes the Ivy leagues. While it may or may not be the military's fault that DADT was passed, the military enforces DADT which is a discriminatory policy that is mutually exclusive with the nation's top universities.</p>
<p>So, because an organization is legally bound to enforce a policy you disagree with, they should be banned? It seems that is a great disservice to our nation, both for the military and for the principles we were founded upon.</p>
<p>Morsmordre point of view is a great indication of the failure of our educational system to provide rational thinking. What he described is pure blatant censorship, by the same token Muslim groups should be banned, ( of course Christian Groups) as well as Jewish groups. </p>
<p>I would assume a liberal education (in the best sense) would make you realize the inconsistency in your argument. You are certainly welcome to disagree with someones views, speak out, but to 'ban' them is exactly similar to the viewpoint of the Fascist and Nazi views of the 20th century.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"So, because an organization is legally bound to enforce a policy you disagree with, they should be banned? It seems that is a great disservice to our nation, both for the military and for the principles we were founded upon."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm a gay man and I suggest that a compromise would be the best way for a temporary solution. Let ROTC back onto campus but continue to withhold academic credit for ROTC courses and academic rank for the instructors until Congress and the President can come forward and repeal DADT and more importantly strike down 10 U.S.C. § 654. This compromise would allow ROTC to actively recruit students from campus and allows the school to sustain their anti-discrimination policies. </p>
<p>This law has been around for almost 16 years, I've seen four presidential elections come and go since then, two Democratic and two Republican, and nothing has changed since its inception. I hope to see the day when it is repealed but I'm not holding my breath until that happens.</p>
<p>Scott, I don't know all the ins and outs of what you have proposed; but it sounds sensible for those that believe that full ROTC programs are a problem. While in practice their might be problems (we arent worried about details here :) ) I like the thinking. </p>
<p>In truth, while I am a middle aged, old fogey suburban republican.... I just don't know that DADT is serving the country, today</p>
<p>One follow up to this whole thread. While we have focused on DADT, as the article points out, DADT has nothing to do with why ROTC was removed from some campuses.</p>
<p>It was removed because the military was viewed as a tool and symbol of maintaining American styled democracy in the world, and a number of people inthe 60's were opposed to this and would have preferred systems more akin to the Socialist and/or Coummunist states of the Soviet bloc. The collapse of this system in the 90s and the hardship it caused by those who lived and travelled there (like myself) made this viewpoint untenable. ..... DADT is a wholly seperate issue</p>
<p>
[Quote]
Morsmordre point of view is a great indication of the failure of our educational system to provide rational thinking. What he described is pure blatant censorship, by the same token Muslim groups should be banned, ( of course Christian Groups) as well as Jewish groups.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>You tire me. I don't have to defend my ability to rationally think to you, thank you very much. I'm guessing we shouldn't ban Nazi groups of course? What if the army made segregation by race the norm? Should we then allow ROTC? You only get freedom of speech and open discourse up to a limit-that limit being when what you have to say won't resonate with a single segment of the population of your audience. I'm very happy that the Ivy Leagues do not allow ROTC and they will continue to do so as long as DADT is in effect. Students at top schools generally will have nothing to say to these type of people, because arguing with them lends a slight legitimacy to their argument. Even Bill Clinton recognized that only a fool would think DADT has been a success. Argue, complain, and whine about our educational system about it all you want, but I remember Yale's statement on a brochure they sent to me that "that ROTC is not allowed because it violates our anti-discriminatory policy". Take ROTC somewhere else. Not at my school. Not at most of the Ivy leagues either.</p>
<p>
[Quote]
So, because an organization is legally bound to enforce a policy you disagree with, they should be banned? It seems that is a great disservice to our nation, both for the military and for the principles we were founded upon.
[/Quote]
</p>
<p>Its more than a policy I don't agree with. It's a policy the whole school doesn't agree with. I wouldn't allow the ROTC on campus just like I wouldn't allow the KKK. When some group enforces discrimination against a segment of our population, that is inconsistent against the tenets of a liberal arts institution. I think it is a bigger, more tangible disservice to my school to allow ROTC on campus, which comes before the abstract, intangible, disservice to the nation which to be honest I really couldn't care less about.</p>
<p>"It was removed because the military was viewed as a tool and symbol of maintaining American styled democracy in the world, and a number of people inthe 60's were opposed to this and would have preferred systems more akin to the Socialist and/or Coummunist states of the Soviet bloc."</p>
<p>I really think that this is almost completely inaccurate. Having actually lived in the US through the Viet Nam era, and been in college for part of it.</p>
<p>No, we shouldn't ban Nazi groups. As much as I hate them, banning free speech due to content you don't like is a very dangerous road to travel. You are advocating the denial of students from your school into military service (as ROTC commissions well over 1/3 of our nation's officer corps).</p>
<p>You don't have to support them, but you shouldn't try to ban them. That's my basic point. Your version seems to say, "I don't like the law they follow, so they shouldn't be allowed here."</p>
<p>There is also a class issue. While I do not support DADT, I am also aware that a full ride to an Ivy League school can be a life changing event not only for the student by for their family. </p>
<p>As the spouse of an officer who began with an ROTC scholarship and a gay son, I know this is a complex issue. I just hope for some forward motion. It's past time.</p>