So Ivey

This is an unfortunate argument against restoring ROTC to elite schools now that DADT is (beginning to be) overturned:

It should not be forgotten that schools have legitimate and moral reasons for keeping the military at bay, regardless of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." They can stand with those who for reasons of conscience reject military solutions to conflicts.

They can stand with Martin Luther King Jr. and his view of America's penchant for war-making: "This madness must cease," he said from a pulpit in April 1967. Even well short of the pacifist positions, they can argue the impracticality of maintaining a military that has helped drive this country into record depths of debt. The defense budget has more than doubled since 2000, to over $700 billion. They can align themselves with colleges such as Hobart, Earlham, Goshen, Guilford, Hampshire, George Fox and a long list of others that teach alternatives to violence. Serve your country after college, these schools say, but consider the Peace Corps as well as the Marine Corps.

Except that keeping ROTC off Ivy campuses doesn't send the message that the Peace Corps isn't a valuable way to serve your country. It sends the message that military service is inconsistent with the values of scholarship, service and dedication -- and, perhaps unfairly but inescapably, that military service is for the less-fortunate corners of the country who don't qualify for the ivies. Including ROTC on campus doesn't amount to an endorsement of militarism. It merely offers another civic choice to a cohort of intelligent/hard-working/motivated/privileged/well-off youth* (*Not all of these adjectives apply to every Ivy student, of course.)

I might also add that robust militaries deter wars as well as wage them, a point that ought to get at least some consideration from an advocate of a "peace studies" curriculum. At the risk of being tendentious, if it's correct to say that being anti-ROTC isn't to be anti-soldier, then it's also true that being pro-ROTC doesn't mean being pro-war.

Comments

[Yougotttaconsiderthesource.blogspot.com]

Meh. It's a silly non-issue, because both things can be equally true. The US is far too militarized, and reaches for a military solution far to often, and in too many cases where it is inappropriate. That does not lead to an argument where offering ROTC on college campuses is supporting that kind of international policy, except in the most indirect and mindless manner. I would much prefer to see college students have access to a career as a military officer than to see aggressive recruiting on high school campuses, especially in poor districts.

Personally, I'd love to see a smaller US military and defense budget, but I'm not sure I can see what that might have to do with young adults having an opportunity to choose a military career as part of their college education.

mikey

[jim]

Actually ROTC is a lot less harmful on an Ivy campus than on Gimcrack State. Gimcrack State has a lot of problems coming up with cash to pay its faculty, financial aid is lower down the list. A student at Gimcrack State will have, at best, loans. ROTC's promise to cover tuition will look very tempting. At an Ivy, there will be financial aid, probably in the form of grants. ROTC tuition payment will be deducted from the financial aid package. The ROTC student at an Ivy will be there because he/she really does regard him/herself as a potential officer. The ROTC student at Gimcrack State is there because he/she has been bribed.

[hilzoy]

There might be universities affiliated with some group, like the Quakers, that advocates pacifism. For them to keep ROTC off campus is fine. But most universities ought to encourage their faculty members to take whatever views they think are right, and part of that is trying not to take positions on controversial issues themselves, as a body, especially when those issues are not related to their core competency, education. Of course it's not possible never to take such positions: universities often own stock, etc., and can hardly help taking positions in their capacity as shareholders, employers, etc. And there might be cases where the value of institutional neutrality breaks down. (E.g., universities in Nazi Germany.)

That said, in general, they should strive for institutional neutrality on non-educational issues, I think. And this isn't because (e.g.) those issues aren't important, or because advocacy is bad; it's *precisely* to enable faculty and students to engage in as much advocacy as they want, without worrying about disagreeing with their institution.

In the case of ROTC in particular, it's also very important that students who do not plan a military career encounter students who do, and vice versa. Students who oppose excessive militarization would benefit enormously from the chance to talk to future army officers, and vice versa. And the military is already too distant from civilian life.

So this seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Ebenezer Scrooge]

There may be a few campuses upon which ROTC might be incongruous. But most schools "teach" business and "communications." They may as well teach war. It's as good a living as any other.

(Btw, the Ivies are a bit more genteel about their vocationalism, calling it "economics" or "semiotics." A small difference in degree; not much difference in essential kind.)

[Mike D.]

The re-establishment of some component of Northeastern-intellectual-elite-type thinking and value ordering into the USM officer corps (which is a realistic possibility given the events in Congress of 12/19/10) would probably do as much as any other step in the evolution of our armed forces to move them away from the kind of role we've seen them have in pushing for certain outcomes in what should be a fully civic-civilian process of societal decisionmaking about going to war. IN particlar, if more officers steeped in the dreaded Realist school of IR theory had been in positions to make known their views on the idea of committing American power to a reordering of Iraqi society absent an act by the existing regime against the U.S., or a threat of one, perhaps the history we are now living would have been much different. On the other hand, in our system that is not a legitimate role for active military officers role in our system so they would have had to do so via resignation, and it's probably a stretch to think that mere affiliation with elite education would have yielded such strength of character. Too, COIN doctrine itself is mostly a product of that world, so perhaps this view is all wet. Still, as has been said above, more competence and judgment in officers, and less social separation between the military and the society are greatly to be desired as regards the status quo, so there is just no case against this step that I can see.