Why the Ivy League is Rethinking ROTC (Time)

Parents Forum
21

<p>Consolation- I am a little too young to have been in college in the 60's.... I was in college 77-81.. I would seriously like to know what the climate for removing ROTC from campus was (bad english, it will have to do) .... I did have the idea that there was an anti military/anti establishment bent to the ROTC removal...... I was probably being preachy about the rest :) ... I would appreciate your thoughts</p>

<p>I am going to quit with the Morsmordre baiting when I get "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 think the point has been made. With this point of view, gays would have no rights , since there point of view wouldnt have resonated with their audience 100 years ago. Stunning, and I assume this is a Stanford student. Unbelievably, I think the ACLU has more in common with my viewpoint than with this gentleman.</p>

22

<p>
[Quote]
Stunning, and I assume this is a Stanford student. Unbelievably, I think the ACLU has more in common with my viewpoint than with this gentleman.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, this is a Stanford student. Interestingly enough the President of Columbia, Yale, and Stanford also agree with me...I'm betting I'm in the "smarter" and "more successful" company.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
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."

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>That is very true. If there was a law in the army advocating segregation, I doubt half of you supporting ROTC returning to campus would outwardly advocate its return to campus. It's just that, as an African American, I have realized that during certain times in history it is ok to "bash" certain groups yet be watchful of others. In this period you can deny rights to gays and (a few other groups) with impunity, but if one dares do something gender or race related, they will have hell to pay for it. Fifty years ago, one could bash African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians with impunity. If there weren't members of the non-persecuted group to stand up for my rights, I wonder where I would be. Therefore, I would want to keep groups that strip rights away from other groups (even with the government's backing) as far away from me as possible. I have nothing against the officers personally, but there are other schools for them to pursue that line of training.</p>

<p>This pretty much sums up my belief:

[Quote]
“Our objection was not to military recruitment on campus, only to the military discrimination policy,” said Stanford Law Prof. George Fisher.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Candidates</a> in favor of ROTC on campus - The Stanford Daily Online</p>

23

<p>Again - you guys are shooting the messenger. </p>

<p>The MILITARY -did NOT creat DADT. This was created by your congressman and mine. If YOU don't like the policy - then take your beef there.</p>

<p>Keeping ROTC off a college campus because of DADT defies logic. It is simply a thinly veiled excuse to keep out the military and military culture- and a poor one - off college campuses. The policy to keep ROTC away because of DADT reeks of elitism.
Nothing more, nothing less.</p>

<p>for instance:

[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One would think a Stanford student would be more intelligent and present a more coherent argument than this piece of vitriol above.
I would hope that at Stanford they would encourage you to do your own research and present a logical train of thought.</p>

<p>Perhaps the "smarter" one gets the more insulated, elitist and threatened they get from those around them.</p>

24

<p>Hmmm, Yale DOES support ROTC:</p>

<p>Yale</a> ROTC Welcome</p>

25

<p>The argument is very coherent and extremely simple if you cannot understand. You may not agree with me, but it is quite logical.</p>

<p>The military violates the very important anti-discriminatory policy. At Stanford, it is part of the fundamental standard, which is basically an all encompassing honor code. It's something we all take very seriously and being part of our community depends on recognizing this policy. If you cannot conduct your behavior without violating this policy, you cannot belong to the Stanford community. It doesn't matter why or who is forcing the policy to be violated, as long as the policy is being violated. The military, with DADT, violates this policy! We cannot have an institution that enforces the discrimination against gays, on campus. If you need an analogy, it would be equivalent to allowing those to cheat on tests just because they are part of the ROTC. No great university that truly respects it's honor code would allow that to occur for anyone including the military...</p>

<p>JustaMom, I would think that a Mom would do her own research before presenting an argument that makes no sense. There is no general hatred of the military, and these college Presidents have stated that as long as there is no DADT, the military can come back to their campus.</p>

<p>Oh and "elitist", "insulated" and (you didn't say this) "Ivory tower intellectual" are just ad hominems that have been hurled at members of my intellectual community for ages. It doesn't bother me at all.</p>

<p>boulderhikemom, Yale welcomes ROTC like Stanford does. It's not on campus. You can take the courses elsewhere and be part of it as a student, but it is not welcome on campus. I think that's a good policy. No one is prevented from joining ROTC, but it won't be allowed on Yale's premises.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
Any student is eligible to enroll in the Army or Air Force ROTC programs offered at the University of Connecticut at Storrs. The course of study fulfills all requirements for successful completion of the ROTC program, but does not count toward the Yale degree. Most Yale students find that the ROTC academic classes and field exercises do not interfere greatly with their Yale College courses and other extracurricular activities.

[/Quote]

Yale</a> ROTC - Daily Life at Yale</p>

<p>
[Quote]
Do students support increased discussion with the Yale administration to bring the program back? And should the University award academic credit for ROTC military science courses, which Yale did until its revocation of ROTC credit provoked the military to withdraw its Yale detachment from campus in spring 1969?

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>
[Quote]
"I don't see President [Richard] Levin, [DC '68], bringing ROTC back to Yale until every single person can participate in it,"

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>
[Quote]
"I think the students at Yale College have a v*ery low tolerance for groups which discriminate against gays and lesbians*."

[/Quote]

The</a> Yale Herald - January 21, 2005 - The Next Battle: ROTC at Yale</p>

26

<p>
[quote]
The military violates the very important anti-discriminatory policy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The military does NOT make the rules!! CONGRESS makes the rules. The "Military" has no choice but to obey what Congress hands down to them.</p>

<p>Here is an interesting thought. Women are forbidden from entering into occupations that may force them into direct combat. For instance, they may not branch infantry or armor in the Army.
This decree keeps women from competing on the same field as male soldiers for promotions and keeps females from being promoted to higher ranks in the Army. This is why we don't see many female Generals.
This is sexism in our Military.
Why doesn't Stanford and Columbia take this on as their cause. Is sexism not important?
Anti-Discriminatory? I have never read that Stanford and Columbia forbid ROTC from their campus because women are forbidden from branching Infantry.</p>

<p>Fact is - DADT is a hold over from the draft from the Vietnam era. When the draft when away they needed another excuse.</p>

<p>My impression of your writings, Mosmordre, is that you are not original in your thinking (simply spewing the rhetoric) and somehow are threatened (?), disgusted(?) by allowing students on your campus who would choose a military career.
If it isn't personal with you then why would you discriminate against a student who has no input in making the rules?
Wouldn't you want our countries future Generals to be educated and enlightened? Would not not want to effect change in that way?</p>

27

<p>If you knew anything about military and the military chain of command - you would know that the top General's are forbidden from engaging in politics. They wear the uniform and follow orders from their Commander in Chief.<br>
To hold the Generals and Admirals accountable is irresponsible and futile.
Furthermore, if you care to research the subject - you would have recently read that several retired Generals and Admirals have indeed called for DADT to be repealed.</p>

<p>Again, if you don't like the rule - quite voting for your Congressman and US Senator. Make Congress accountable.
Does Stanford allow their students to be Congressional interns? I bet they do. How can they possibly allow their students to take part in a part of the government that insists on discrimination?</p>

28

<p>
[Quote]
The military does NOT make the rules!! CONGRESS makes the rules. The "Military" has no choice but to obey what Congress hands down to them.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>I fully understand this. That does not give you a right to violate Stanford's rules though.</p>

<p>The sexism argument appears valid, but it's sort of a perversion of logic. That's like saying we shouldn't allow football because women can't participate. The military has a perfectly logical reason for not allowing women in direct combat...not so much for not allowing gays to be open...unless you want to debate that.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
My impression of your writings, Mosmordre, is that you are not original in your thinking (simply spewing the rhetoric) and somehow are threatened (?), disgusted(?) by allowing students on your campus who would choose a military career.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>I am disgusted by the discrimination in the military. There is nothing original to write about because this is a black and white issue for me. It would be the same as if someone were trying to pass Jim Crow laws. It would be reiterating what others have said, because there is not too much to be said. I personally couldn't care less if people wanted to join the military who go to my school. What I would care about is allowing an institution that (enforces), I don't care if it causes, discrimination on my campus. That is the fundamental difference between you and I. I do not care how the discrimination originated, as long as there is discrimination, it's wrong.</p>

<p>Again I will repeat, I'm not saying it's the military's fault. It is great that generals want it repealed, in fact a friend of mine who's father was in the Navy said that it was a stupid policy. However, discrimination can not be tolerated.</p>

29

<p>
[Quote]
Does Stanford allow their students to be Congressional interns? I bet they do. How can they possibly allow their students to take part in a part of the government that insists on discrimination?

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>You can join ROTC, hell you can even become a KKK member as long as you don't bring it over here. You're trying to make this into a scenario which it is not. Stanford is not against ROTC because of the military, it is against because of DADT.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
The military has a perfectly logical reason for not allowing women in direct combat

[/quote]

no they don't. to even suggest this only confirms your sexist beliefs.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I do not care how the discrimination originated, as long as there is discrimination, it's wrong.

[/quote]

you just contradicted yourself. time to go back to debate club.</p>

<p>For those who care to be enlightened:</p>

<p>104</a> retired military brass against 'don't ask-don't tell' - CNN.com</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
The military has a perfectly logical reason for not allowing women in direct combat...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, that's rich. So you want to keep your campus free of the military but sexism you welcome with open arms. Very progressive, that.</p>

32

<p>Look, it would be perfectly rational for some colleges to ban ROTC in order to bring pressure to bear on Congress and the Administration to get rid of DADT. It may be true that it's not the military's choice whether or not to enforce DADT, but a college may reasonably want to exclude an organization that does in fact enforce such a rule.</p>

<p>I do think, though, that a lot of campuses eliminated ROTC before DADT became an issue, and it was probably because of anti-war sentiments.</p>

33

<p>For me, this is not at all an issue of Gay rights or sexism. It's about how we support the military, not how much we can leverage it as a pawn in cultural debates. As our culture changes, especially through laws and legislation, so will the policies enforced under military codes since it's a subordinant institution. However, I don't think it works in reverse. Banning the military from campuses will not change culture or law because the military does not hold that particular realm of authority or influence. Attempts to dismantle military related functions on the premise of changing civil culture strikes me as a misdirected effort.</p>

34

<p>^
Bingo.</p>

<p>However, Hunt has it right in his last sentence. I believe that if DADT was repealed tomorrow that neither Stanford nor Harvard would be calling up the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps ROTC and extending them an open invitation.</p>

35

<p>I don't welcome sexism with open arms its just that the army probably has rational reasons from preventing women from serving in combat. If it were an issue and women complained about it, then I would be concerned. From what I've heard, I've never heard females argue about not being allowed a combat role, but again if it became an issue of discrimination then that would also be against the discriminatory policy. Still I consider that to be similar to outlawing football because all the players are male and there is no female counterpart to football. It's a pretty poor argument and detracts from the real substance of the debate.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
no they don't. to even suggest this only confirms your sexist beliefs.

[/Quote]

If you want to go down this route you're nothing more than a homophobe. See, I can act stupid and hurl around names. Also, if my beliefs were sexist, then the military's would be too...</p>

<p>
[Quote]
I believe that if DADT was repealed tomorrow that neither Stanford nor Harvard would be calling up the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps ROTC and extending them an open invitation.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>Spend some time at a real elite institution before you come to these conclusions. You're ignorance is stunning yet not too surprising since you probably don't know anyone who attends these schools, nor could you get in. It is one of the biggest myths in the world perpetrated by know-nothing anti-intellectuals who have never step foot on these colleges campus that these institutions are a bastion of Anti-Americanism. Just take a visit to Stanford or Harvard, ask the students if you don't believe me. They care about this country as much as you do and do not feel uncomfortable with the military. But of course, you have blinders on and will never see that. Until then, be content with ROTC being banned from our pristine campuses =)</p>

36

<p>Actually I know a significant number of women, in the military who would like to serve in combat arms services. In addition, I know a large, number of military officers who consider the ban unnecessary and a detriment. Again, I believe it is a ban was origniated by congress. </p>

<p>I probably wont respond again, I stand in awe of the 80 pound brain that was handed to Mr. Morsmordre when he matriculated at Stanford. I am unfortunately an intellectual baffon...oh btw why are you a student posting on a parents forum.</p>

<p>One last comment, interestingly my view may not differ in some regards than Mr. Ms. but the fact that he has a rather peculiar view of the right to freedom of speech, I found baffling. In reality, messages of the equality of races, probably didnt 'resonate' in the early 1800's yet some kept speaking anyway and we are better off for it. I do think, btw, that --within reason -- an institution has the right to ban groups it doesnt agree with, as noted in the constitution, simply congress shall make no law............
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "</p>

<p>I would simply suggest that prohibiting discourse is not an appropriate approach.</p>

37

<p>I knew some Harvard alums who were in ROTC before it was banned from campus owing to DADT. One of them graduated summa cum laude, did six years in the navy, came back and did a joint MA degree and a Law degree and was immediately hired by a top NY firm. Another was from Appalachia and had his eye on a full time army career.
There is no reason to think that Harvard or other top schools would not welcome ROTC back if DADT were repealed. There are currently students in ROTC at Harvard, except that they have to go to MIT for their training. It's a silly compromise and I know there have been discussions about bringing back ROTC. But the budget crunch has put everything on the back burner so I don't know whether the issue will be discussed and resolved in the near future or not.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
From what I've heard, I've never heard females argue about not being allowed a combat role

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm sure everyone in the thread is anxious to hear how many members of the military you know.</p>

<p>These institutions have some pretty big names, and if they band together, I think they could have a lot of pull. Therefore, I suggest they put out a joint statement, saying that they will welcome ROTC to their campuses as soon as DADT is repealed, and put some pressure on Congress to repeal it. Unless of course they don't really want it repealed. But if they do want it repealed, maybe they could actively work toward that goal, instead of being passive-aggressive about it.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
I am disgusted by the discrimination in the military... However, discrimination can not be tolerated.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Except against women. Then you are sure that the same people who made the policy of DADT have a really, really good reason for the policy that excludes women from combat roles. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, if my beliefs were sexist, then the military's would be too...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The policy is sexist and so is your support of it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If it were an issue and women complained about it, then I would be concerned. From what I've heard, I've never heard females argue about not being allowed a combat role, but again if it became an issue of discrimination then that would also be against the discriminatory policy. Still I consider that to be similar to outlawing football because all the players are male and there is no female counterpart to football. It's a pretty poor argument and detracts from the real substance of the debate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Good grief. Is this what passes for critical thinking skills at Stanford these days? Or did you arrive on campus still believing that if you cannot see something then it does not exist and your professors are still trying to convince you otherwise? </p>

<p>I've been married to an aviator in the military for nearly 20 years. During his first tour in Iraq, his squadron had their first female pilots fly in combat missions. These women did a job that just a few years before they were thought incapable of doing. Women have been fighting for decades to open combat roles to women and aviation is just the tip of the iceburg. </p>

<p>But by all means, please go back to enlightening us abou how discimination in the military is so completely intolerable to you.</p>

40

<p>Assuming that not allowing women in combat roles is discrimination (which I'm not sure about, but lets just take your word for it), that even still wouldn't be against our anti-discrimination policy because there are no combat roles at Stanford. Therefore, women wouldn't be discriminated against at Stanford while in the ROTC. They would be while in combat, but would still not be prevented from participating fully at Stanford. However since DADT applies everywhere, including the ROTC so people would still be discriminated against at Stanford.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
I would simply suggest that prohibiting discourse is not an appropriate approach.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>This even assumes that allowing the military is a freedom of speech issue. Thinking back on it, it probably isn't even. It's a freedom of action, not speech. There were (believe it or not) Yes on 8 fliers at Stanford, even though Stanford was officially No on 8. You can defend the military's power to enforce DADT, but you can't enforce it on Stanford's campus.</p>

<p>
[Quote]
Except against women. Then you are sure that the same people who made the policy of DADT have a really, really good reason for the policy that excludes women from combat roles.

[/Quote]
</p>

<p>No Bill Clinton who signed the law into effect, said that no serious person could look at DADT and say it's a success. My view was that perhaps because most females are physically weaker than most males, the military thought that females shouldn't be in combat roles because they'd be seen as easier targets and if captured, receive the brunt of the torturing. But, again, if there is no logical reason behind it, then it too should go...but it would still be like not allowing Congress interns at Stanford.</p>

<p>It seems that the posters against me in this thread are trying to show one thing which is that Stanford and other top schools don't care for the military just because. But you still can't prove to me how these schools don't want the military there. I won't argue that there will likely be a huge interest in ROTC (because most of us are either wealthy or on generous financial aid) but it's wrong to presume that these top schools just hate the military.</p>