<p>The concept that you can ban a FEDERAL institution that fights to protect rights in AMERICA is ridiculous. These ROTC ppl are the fine ppl who allow America to be great and protect the rights that we have hear. Who cares about DADT, what makes me mad is the discrimination that these institutions show towards the ppl who fight to protect the "human rights" that so many of these so called "intellectuals" go on about. Point blank, professors talk about rights, but these ppl actually protect them.</p>
<p>As I also just realized, considering the federal government is really the ones instituting DADT (as opposed to the small branch which is forced to follow it), shouldn't these colleges completely disassociate themselves from the government, eschewing all forms of communication or collaboration until DADT is repealed? That means not having Congressmen or former presidents (especially Clinton) come on campus, and no research grants or anything such as that.</p>
<p>I think the approach Wesleyan has taken makes more sense: Wesleyan</a> Puts Out Call for Veterans
give scholarships to vets; they're older, wiser, have a better idea of what they want from a liberal srts education -- not to mention the whole diversity dimension. Frankly, IMHO, the idea that a liberal arts education will make someone a better soldier is just a little grotesque.</p>
<p>This thread is not really debating DADT itself but I have to respectfully disagree with davygravy and amciw on their assessments.
There have been quite a few studies done on DADT that show that gay soldiers can and do perform as well as those who are straight. Your arguments were the same excuses that were used to resist women being accepted into service academies and integrated into the military.</p>
<p>The kids I know, including my own, who are in their late teens and early 20's could care less if someone is gay or not. For them it really isn't an issue at all.</p>
<p>johnwesley - would you care to explain? This baffles me.
[quote]
Frankly, IMHO, the idea that a liberal arts education will make someone a better soldier is just a little grotesque
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You do bring up another point, however. I am sure Harvard, Columbia and Stanford allow students to use their GI Bill benefits. Have not these students participated in an organization that discriminates?</p>
<p>Speaking of Columbia - they offer a Master's degree program for Army Officers who are stationed at West Point. They accept DOD money for this program without issue. So why not ROTC?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This thread is not really debating DADT itself but I have to respectfully disagree with davygravy and amciw on their assessments.
There have been quite a few studies done on DADT that show that gay soldiers can and do perform as well as those who are straight. Your arguments were the same excuses that were used to resist women being accepted into service academies and integrated into the military.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The point of contention was not the individual capabilities of the gay soldiers, but the cohesiveness of army units and resultant impact on their effectiveness. I never said that gay soldiers fought worse, but that the platoons, or air crew, or tank crew they are serving in might be negatively effected, because they require functioning as a team.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The kids I know, including my own, who are in their late teens and early 20's could care less if someone is gay or not. For them it really isn't an issue at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your kids are in no way representative of the soldiers in the military, so it is probably a bad idea to think their views indicative of said aforementioned group.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, IMHO, the idea that a liberal arts education will make someone a better soldier is just a little grotesque.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It would certainly make them a better officer, who are, of course, what ROTC/NROTC programs produce (2nd lieutenants, to be precise, or the naval equivalent.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Frankly, IMHO, the idea that a liberal arts education will make someone a better soldier is just a little grotesque.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Frankly, your level of ignorance is just a little grotesque. </p>
<p>anciw, I've been married to a US Marine for nearly 20 years. The younger officers do not care and I would dare say a slim majority of the older ones do not care either. They have out family, friends, teachers, professors, etc. </p>
<p>The military functions as it is ordered. That will be true with this as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but that the platoons, or air crew, or tank crew they are serving in might be negatively effected, because they require functioning as a team.
[/quote]
And I am telling you that several studies have refuted this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your kids are in no way representative of the soldiers in the military, so it is probably a bad idea to think their views indicative of said aforementioned group.
[/quote]
You don't know anything about my kids.<br>
I think the TWO ROTC students that you know are NOT representive of said aforementioned group.</p>
<p>amciw - you ignorance of the military is obvious. Folks who don't really know of what they are speaking should silence themselves and listen.<br>
[quote]
the idea that a liberal arts education will make someone a better soldier is just a little grotesque.
[/quote]
is preposterous. In fact, the opposite is true. Bet you didn't know that Officers are Soldiers.</p>
<br>
<p>johnwesley - would you care to explain? This baffles me.</p>
<br>
<p>Quote:
Frankly, IMHO, the idea that a liberal arts education will make someone a better soldier is just a little grotesque<</p>
<p>justamomof4 - Learning how to take orders would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from "learning how to learn". That's why I think bringing the perspective of someone who already has had military experience to a campus setting makes more sense; it becomes one thread among many, leading to the same goal, a life of relevance and significance. Allowing individual veterans to use their GI Bill benefits doesn't imply anything, one way or the other, about whether they discriminated against gay people while in the military.</p>
<p>But, you also bring up a very good point which is, whether the nation benefits from haviing a well-educated officer class? I think the answer is yes, of course. And, like everything else in life, it is a matter of using common sense. Places like Cornell or even Berkeley already have the capacity to create the requisite esprit de corps for military recruits. They already do much the same thing for nursing students, for pharmacology students, electricians, hotel management students, etc., etc.. It's not such a far cry from what they already do. I think it would be much more difficult for Swarthmore and Wesleyan to do the same thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Learning how to take orders would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from "learning how to learn".
[/quote]
On the contrary. The Army learned a lot from Vietnam.
We no longer have soldiers who are satisfied just "taking orders". The military is far more educated and worldly that the military of WWII.
Learning to take orders within the Chain of Command is taught to every soldier - officer and enlisted. Having a liberal arts education doesn't interfere with this at all.</p>
<p>Certainly Officers benefit from having a liberal arts education - this is one reason why West Point provides one of the top quality and rigorous liberal arts educations.</p>
<p>I can refer you to two fine books both written by Ivy League grads who were then commissioned and were Platoon Leaders in Afghanistan.
"This Man's Army" by Andrew Exum - UPenn
"One Bullet Away" by Nate Fick - Dartmouth.
Both were commissioned prior to 9/11/01 and both served their country well as officers. Their personal journeys as Ivy League grads are compelling.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Allowing individual veterans to use their GI Bill benefits doesn't imply anything, one way or the other, about whether they discriminated against gay people while in the military.
[/quote]
Sure it does. It does just as much as implying that any student who chooses ROTC and a military career is going to discriminate against gay people when they are officers. Both being a part of the same "discriminatory" organization.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Learning how to take orders would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from "learning how to learn".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not know where to start. The mind boggles. Shall I recommend a book on military history, theory or practice? Or just a history book? </p>
<p>
[quote]
...it becomes one thread among many, leading to the same goal, a life of relevance and significance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since your education about the military is so lacking, it's probably going to come as a surprise to you that many veterans have already led a life of relevance and significance. Yes, it's true! </p>
<p>It's just crushingly disappointing to read comments like these. I'm not in favor of the draft but my g-d, when did ignorance about the military become a point of pride?</p>
<p>
<p>Where do you suggest anything beyond the fact that gay soldiers, individually, are as capable as those who are straight?</p>
<p> [quote] You don't know anything about my kids.
</p>
<p>Of course I don't. That doesn't change the fact they don't represent the majority of soldiers in the military, which you were suggesting they are.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the TWO ROTC students that you know are NOT representive of said aforementioned group.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they aren't. Perhaps I should look at the kid who joined last year (conservative), the two that joined two years ago, one at WP (both Christian conservative). The point is, trying to pretend that all kids are as tolerant as yours is wrong, because there are kids joining who don't like gays.</p>
<p>
[quote]
amciw - you ignorance of the military is obvious. Folks who don't really know of what they are speaking should silence themselves and listen.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What makes you so qualified to talk about it? I'm fine if you are, but you haven't indicated that you have any experiences that would grant you better knowledge than me, unlike pugmadkate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Certainly Officers benefit from having a liberal arts education - this is one reason why West Point provides one of the top quality and rigorous liberal arts educations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Considering I stated this above, does that make me less ignorant of the military than before?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>...it becomes one thread among many, leading to the same goal, a life of relevance and significance. </p> </blockquote>
<p>Since your education about the military is so lacking, it's probably going to come as a surprise to you that many veterans have already led a life of relevance and significance. Yes, it's true!< </p>
<br>
<p>pugmadkate - that might well be true. But, if they're taking advantage of the G.I. Bill that implies they've made a choice to move on to another phase in their lives, one that requires a college degree. It goes without saying, they have the potential to make enormous contributions to any college community. More than the average 17 y/o recruit.</p>
<p>amciw - actually I have a cadet at West Point. I am also the daughter of a career military officer. My brother and sister in-law were both in the Army, my sister-in-law retired after 20 years of service. Another brother's step son is an Army Veteran who served a tour in Afghnaistan and one in Iraq.<br>
Does any of this give me any credibility?<br>
I have done quite a lot of reading, research and independent thinking of my own. </p>
<p>Please don't generalize that all future and present military officers agree with DADT. Many do not.
Yes, there are soldiers who fully support DADT and come up with all kinds of "reasons" (excuses) to justify the rule. However, there are many soldiers who feel the same way about women in the service. If you surveyed all 4400 West Point cadets you could probably find some who do not think women should be there. They don't speak for the entire Corps nor the entire military.</p>
<p>Some people who agree with some colleges not allowing ROTC think that all ROTC cadets agree with DADT and endorse such discrimination.<br>
IMO - what it really boils down to is that they don't want to see their fellow students go to class in a military uniform.</p>
<p>johnwesley - many folks go use the GI Bill are already college grads. They use it to get their master's. Not only that many Active Duty officers attend these schools with their education paid for by Uncle Sam. Yet the colleges accept that money.
An 18 year old ROTC cadet has the potential to make an enormous contribution to any college campus. This is one reason why many schools give extra scholarship money to ROTC cadets by funding their room and board.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please don't generalize that all future and present military officers agree with DADT. Many do not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have met few officers who are expressly against gays in the military. However, at least one has suggested that DADT is, at present, the "least worst" option offered. This is where it gets tricky, of course. Do we keep DADT for now because it is the least dysfunctional option, or do we chance a breakthrough toward a better option, though it may end in even more trouble? It's hard to say.</p>
<p>As for the whole "liberal arts education not being good for the military," I say rubbish. Many-- if not most-- of the best military leaders were clearly well-rounded, lettered men. One does not stop taking orders because one has the capacity to think clearly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>None at all...</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have done quite a lot of reading, research and independent thinking of my own.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have done this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Please don't generalize that all future and present military officers agree with DADT. Many do not.
Yes, there are soldiers who fully support DADT and come up with all kinds of "reasons" (excuses) to justify the rule. However, there are many soldiers who feel the same way about women in the service. If you surveyed all 4400 West Point cadets you could probably find some who do not think women should be there. They don't speak for the entire Corps nor the entire military.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know. I never suggested that the officers agreed with it. Regardless, its probably best we just respectfully end any discussion on this, because I think we are just dancing around arguments with insufficient example sizes to support what we are saying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
One does not stop taking orders because one has the capacity to think clearly.
[/quote]
And for those giving orders, such a capacity is undeniably beneficial.</p>
<p>this whole conversation is just a proxy for the underlying issue which is why the world's leading military power is without a universal draft? You want 90% of Congress to have military experience? You want to invoke the glories of Ancient Greece? You're not going to get there with palliative measures. And, a universal draft system would make a universal approach to ROTC a matter of course.</p>
<p>Unless we do away with college exemption and make it apply to both genders, it won't do much good.</p>
<p>oh, I agree!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I knew some Harvard alums who were in ROTC before it was banned from campus owing to DADT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Didn't H (and Columbia) ban the ROTC in the late 60's?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard University and the ROTC have had a turbulent relationship since the late 1960s. In 1969, the arts and sciences faculty voted to force ROTC units off campus to register "disapproval of the military" in response to the strong pacifist sentiment of antiwar activists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The source is [url=<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n37_v9/ai_14248075%5Dhere%5B/url">http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n37_v9/ai_14248075]here[/url</a>], for your reference.</p>