Thu 30 Aug 2007
A great article from last year on Harvard and ROTC. This is why institutions such as Harvard should get points for officially supporting such programs! They take the heat and allow young men and women the financial support for school which they deserve when they commit to a period of service in our military. In doing so at places like Harvard they recognize service in our armed forces as an honorable elite tradition.
Speaking directly to the newly commissioned officers, Summers said, “America is strong because it is free; America is free because it is strong. And it is strong because of the service of wonderful individuals like those we commission today.”
I thought there wasn’t anything more important that someone could do than to serve their country … so I admire your courage, your devotion as citizens in joining our armed forces at this crucial moment,” he added. Speaking of the University’s sometimes uneasy relationship with ROTC, he said that more could be done “because whatever you think about policy issues … I believe our country is most important, and I believe our country is best served when great universities like this one stand with those who defend the freedom that makes it possible for us to do all the wonderful things that we are able to do here.” Summers also expressed a wish: “I look forward to the day when it is common and doesn’t draw remark when an Ivy League president attends an ROTC commissioning ceremony.”
Why does’nt Williams have an ROTC program?
August 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
if only the government saw fit to have a reserve teachers in training program too.
August 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Insufficient student interest in ROTC.
August 30th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
1) I do not think that ROTC is allowed at Harvard because of faculty opposition. The “Harvard” ROTC students actually take their classes at MIT.
2) There is one ROTC student at Williams. He fulfills his Air Force (I think) ROTC at RPI.
3) Frank is right about why there is no ROTC at Williams. Of course, there is a chicken-and-egg problem since high school students interested in ROTC don’t even apply to Williams since there is no program. But, for economies of scale, the military only has ROTC programs at universities with lots of student interest. I don’t see that happening at Williams.
Now, Marine Corps OCS is another matter . . .
August 30th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
As someone who grew up in the 60’s, a lot of ROTC programs were a magnet for students protesting the Vietnam war. Students would carry placards protesting the ROTC program, toss firebombs into the training buildings, threaten officers who tried to recruit students to the program, etc. To curry student favor and stop newspaper headlines, many universities dropped ROTC like a hot potato. Current administrators with a long memory probably don’t want to relive those days, given the unpopularity of the Iraq war.
August 31st, 2007 at 1:44 am
Ah the times they are a’changin’.
At Berkeley, it was one (academic) women’s center professor (and friend’s) office that was ransacked (with minor fire) by ROTC students.
Disciplinary action by UCB: pat, pat (harsher than it would have been under the tolerance towards academic plagiarism, at least.). ROTC dropped the individuals and billed them for their scholarships. Or ‘as I heard it.’
The guys from the 101st here tonight (one on leave from Colombia, another from NYU) mention that they’ve done stupider things.
I suspect the financial significance of ROTC to the institution has more to do with decision-making than other concerns, with respect to Guy.
Last I was in Berkeley, at least the ROTC students didn’t get hissed & jeered, as was the case in the 90s, and feel they had to take their uniforms off before exiting the gym.
Then again, in Berkeley in the 90s, the police got hissed & jeered for wearing uniforms. …
August 31st, 2007 at 4:39 am
Sans ROTC training, in a couple of weeks I’m going to be presenting before some relatively interested folks in the US military at Fort Leavenworth a proposal on why policing ought not to be politicized in areas of political contestation. Damn my lack of Williams-sanctioned training that somehow still stems from my Williams education. And to hell with the fools affiliated with the US Army for paying my way! But what does the US military know about . . . fuck, I’m confused. Stupid liberal arts education.
Please, lecture me more. Everything I’ve derived about social obligation obviously came either from before or after my years in Williamstown. Nothing I know about the world, and thus my response to it, comes from those four lost years. Help me to say things that won’t make me sound dumb. I’ll throw out the work I’ve already done. Maybe one of those Harvard kids can show me the way.
In Continual Confusion,
Derek
August 31st, 2007 at 5:58 am
Derek- lol. Funny. Still, nothing that officially supports a pay for education military program for military service after attending Williams… nothing.
They pay your way because they have more money than god! DOD is the 100 lb gorilla in the room. But you already know that!
Keep up the good work!
I guess I owe my service to drunken party times at a large university in New England! Damn my lack of drunken party behavior-sanctioned training that somehow still stems from my drunken party education. And to hell with the fools that run the US Military for paying my way! But what does the US military know about . . . fuck, I’m confused. Stupid drunk party education.
Lol.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:28 am
ROTC programs generally exist in metropolitan areas. It was my understanding that all the Boston-area colleges, including Harvard, MIT, Tufts, and Wellesley, all did their ROTC training at the same place (MIT?). Obviously, a college like Wellesley would be unable to support its own ROTC program, but luckily they can travel to the common program. For Williams, this is less feasible since the nearest program is too far away and there is no public transportation to get there.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:48 am
Diana- If fully supported, it could be done, easily.
August 31st, 2007 at 2:27 pm
PTC –
I don’t understand this argument: “Still, nothing that officially supports a pay for education military program for military service after attending Williams.” As opposed to the way that Williams pays for medical school, grad school, law school, or business school for its graduates? Oh, wait, it does none of those things. I’m not clear why Williams not paying for peoples’ education via ROTC when it has fantastic financial aid could be interpreted as a failing on the college’s part. Places without adequate financial aid resources might rightly be chided for not availing students of all options to finance their education. I don’t see Williams as a fair target for such criticism.
I’m also curious what the interest level would be in a Williams ROTC program. On that front, I suspect that Frank is simply correct.
dcat
August 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I think you are wrong dcat. Some people join the service who go to Williams. I think a lot more would join if it offered an official program that paid for their education if they did so. Take away student loans, and give to those who give back. Of course, the military is only one way in which people can serve the country, but it a very visible way, and one that often leads to other forms of service like getting a job working for other gov agencies, contracting, etc.
I have spoken with several students who have had an interest in the military. I know some who joined after I showed them some things Uncle Sam has to offer (and I am just a townie, passing back through town on rare occassions when I am on leave). I suspect the same is true for the “owner” of this blog, whoīs service in the Marines obviously had a profound impact on his life. I do not believe Frank is correct. Young people are searching for something more right now, given our current problems. It may get some protest, but I admire Harvard for having an official position that promotes service in our Armed Forces from elite people. I think schools should get credit for promoting service.
Look at it this way, some grads have even enlisted to get in. Imagine if Williams had an official program that gave a comission, with membership from some of its more elite student athletes, for example?
Med school, law school, grad school etc does not automatically mean a person is going to use those skills in a capacity that gives back in some meaningfull way. The military is one of the very few places where a person has to legally commit to our country for a long (4 years or more, normally) period time. Plus our military is an outstanding organization, that breeds brotherhood from people who come from all walks of life, races and socio economic backgrounds.
Even having a military job fair, for example, (which would cost the college nothing) would be an interesting thing. I suspect more young men and women would show up with interest than you imagine.
August 31st, 2007 at 4:25 pm
In the early 50s Williams had a full blown ROTC program. By the late 50s it had withered and died on the vine for lack of student interest - and in my view rightly so. Why fill up one’s college life at a place like Williams with its many interesting and valuable course and extracurricular offerings with the kind of “thin gruel” ROTC offered to the 50s student?
August 31st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
harvard is a cowardly institution in this case, not something Williams should try to emulate. It is trying to have it both ways…appease anti-ROTC people (does ROTC disproportionately recruit from low-income areas?) by not having it on campus while also appeasing pro-ROTC people by pointing to the students it ships to another school for their training.
Hampshire College had the same thing when i worked there briefly with its students and it was nothing but a work-around. same at harvard.
If I promisd to join the peacecorps or teach wherever they sent me for five years after college, shouldn’t i get my degree paid for also? why one form of service over another?
September 1st, 2007 at 12:05 am
Its because the military isn’t equally opportunity in terms of sexual orientation. At least that’s how it is at some other schools.
September 1st, 2007 at 6:28 am
Actually- That is an excuse an old excuse made after it was was disavowed for other reasons long ago. It is dishonest.
The military does not have a policy against having gays serve. Many gay people are in our militay. Gay men and women have served in every war with diostinction, and continue to do so today. The policy is donīt ask donīt tell.
September 1st, 2007 at 6:30 am
Rory- Not my argument. I think other things should be considered and other programs should be pushed. That has nothing to do with military programs.
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
But if you are out in the miltary, if someone asks and you do tell, or if someone doesn’t ask and you do tell, you’re out, and I don’t just mean out of the closet. The only dishonest argument here is one that avers that we have a gay-tolerant military. The fact that we have to have any policy at all is noxious. And it makes us less safe. Just think of the number of gay Arabic speakers who have been released from their positions because of their sexuality. And then try to give me the (demonstrably false) palaver about not having an anti-gay policy in the military.
dcat
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Dcat- I agree that DADT is a poor policy. However, sexuality in the military is not an easy issue. It is like no other job, in that young people are ordered to work and live/ sleep / shower together for long periods of time.
Having said that- Gays are serving in our military. Those that want to stay in the closet, can do so and serve a career. I have known many gay people in our armed forces. I agree though, it is not an atmosphere that is very tolerant of homosexuality.
This argument that DADT if the reason that schools do not allow military recruiting is bogus though. It is an excuse to keep the armed services from recruiting on college campuses because of peoples feelings about war. Perhaps this excuse works for Williams?? I doubt it.
September 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
That sounds just like a residential college! Williams needs a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy! Without it, the “homosexual agenda” will get us all!
You know, it’s not really a great thing, psychologically, to “stay in the closet.” Having to constantly hide a part of yourself can really take a toll on your psyche and lead to some fairly self-destructive behaviors. [The Larry Craig story should tell us that much.]
I can’t believe that our country asks committed patriots to do such a thing, for such poor reasons. Protesting that policy is a good and just thing to do.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I like how PTC almost deigns to acknowledge that being gay in the military — as long as one remains in the closet — as long as them gays keep a vcentral part of their identity hidden lest they be fired no matter if they have a skill set we desperately need — is difficult and that DADT is bad. I also like how he decides why people don’t want ROTC on campus. But he is wrong: As long as the military has a policy where gay folks must live in the closet, as long as the military has policies that are fundamentally bigoted, I don’t want its programs gaining official sanction at my alma mater. So don’t tell me with all of the condescending sagacity that you can muster that the military’s bigotry is a bogus reason to oppose ROTC at Williams. It is a fully legitimate reason. And it is my damned reason. I don’t want my alma mater countenancing bigotry.
And I call bullshit on you knowing “many gay people in our military,” or at least any that actually want to stay in there. That’s the “I have black friends” argument intended to provide cover for a dubious argument. Sorry. I don’t buy that dozens of gay folks in our military have confided in you despite your stance that if they just keep their damned gay mouths shut they can have a fine career.
dcat
September 4th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Why must ROTC degenerate into whether being gay is don’t ask, don’t tell?
What does ROTC have to do with being gay?
Why must gays, like women, draw attention to themselves?
Being a member of the military should draw our attention to the inordinate sacrifice these boys must make for our neighbors and our families. To listen to your diatribe about queers diminishes the value of service to being serviced.
Shame on all of you.
September 4th, 2007 at 1:15 am
First off, how dare you? How dare you come in, misundertstand the entire discussion, and then close off by saying “shame on you.” My first inclination is to tell you to fuck off. But I won’t do that, no matter how you deserve it. instead I’ll try to answer your poorly written questions far more coherently than you bothered to ask them.
“Why must ROTC degenerate into whether being gay is don’t ask, don’t tell?”
Er, I assume you mean a discussion about ROTC? The reason such a discussion might “degenerate” (you need to be much, much smarter before I’m going to allow you to condescend to me, you anonymous pousbag) into a discussion about don’t ask, don’t tell is because that is currently the military’s policy on gays in the military. And so military policy is — wait for it — relevant in a discussion about the military and any subsection of it. How an earnest debate qualifies as “degenerating” is beyond me.
“What does ROTC have to do with being gay?”
Nothing. And only a moron would assert that anyone here has argued as much. But given that ROTC fuels the military’s officer corps, and given the military’s policy on out gay men and women who serve, it would seem that a discussion of whether Williams ought to have a ROTC program would be the place to have this discussion.
“Why must gays, like women, draw attention to themselves?”
I have no idea what this means. Your three questions have culminated in the perfect storm of idiocy. But to get at the heart of what you seem to be asking, why should gays have to hide their sexuality? Hetrosexuals talk about their heterosexual life all the time — every time we mention our wives or children we are in a larger sense talking about our heterosexuality. How would gays wanting to servbe the country and not have to live in the closet represent drawing attention to themselves. Your inclusion of women in the question is just baffling.
Then you write: “Being a member of the military should draw our attention to the inordinate sacrifice these boys must make for our neighbors and our families.”
Er, wishful thinking on your part or not, there are also women serving and dying in the military. How about their inordinate sacrifice? Yoo damned showy, I suppose.
“To listen to your diatribe about queers diminishes the value of service to being serviced.”
What diatribe? I made an argument. the only diatribe here is your last two sentences. And given your manifest hostility to gays, the fact that you are using the word “queers” just puts your bigotry out there for everyone to see. What a gasbag.
dcat
September 4th, 2007 at 9:41 am
#1- Anyone who compares life in the armed forces to life in college, has no clue. No response required on that “point”.
#2- Ok Dcat. I get your argument. I happen to agree with a lot of what you have to say on this matter. I just do not know how to fix it. Sexuality, in general, is a tough issue for the armed forces. Men and women serving together as heterosexuals is also tough. Seperate showers, berthing, specific rules…. name it.
#3- As far as people “confiding” in me, that is beyond the point. I happen to know gay people who do not have to tell me they are gay, or tell me that their “friend” is actually a boyfriend or a girlfriend… there is a thing called common sense. (I guess McCain would say “Gaydar”…) I know a man who was arrested in a public mens room who used the ” big mistake” excuse and stayed in the service. It is the letter of the law. Yes Dcat, I know men serving who have been arrested for homosexual activity in public and are still in the service. The policy is Don’t ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t persue. It is a LOUSY COMPROMISE. I agree. The military is not “gay friendly” …. I agree. But if a person does not come out and say “I am gay” they normally stay in, unless busted in a sexual act during the course of a deployment.
What % of the females serving are lesbians….? I bet it beats the statistical average. Who cares? Not me. Great topic! New thread, shall we?
September 4th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Derek,
I agree with you - and others - that the military’s policy on homosexuality is bad and should be repealed. That having been said, the policy is one imposed by Congress (albeit with the encouragement of many in the military) working within the democratic process. It is not an internal, military-originated policy.
I think Williams, and the country, would benefit if the caliber of students who go to Williams could have ROTC available if they so chose. Frankly, if over time the military has more and more officers and men who have been had “normal” contacts over their life with gay people, it is more likely, I would think, that the policy will eventually be changed.
I recognize that having an organization which tries to exclude homosexuals recruit on campus is a difficult issue and that reasonable people can disagree on it, but I think Williams should welcome military recruiters and offer, if possible, an ROTC program.