In Defense of ROTC

In an op-ed to the New York Times, William Broyles Jr. writes of allowing “other people’s children” to fight our wars. Noting the scarcity of politicians’ family members fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, Broyles ends his column by advocating the return of the draft; only then “chance, not connection or clever manipulation, would determine who serves.” Charles B. Rangel, a representative from New York and another supporter of the draft, echoed this sentiment in his remarks to the House of Representatives on February 13, 2003. Invoking a Vietnam-era speech by Dr. Martin Luther King, he voiced his desire for a more “equitable representation of all classes of Americans” in the armed services. Broyles and Rangel claim that a war’s worth can be judged by the willingness of all members of society to bear the consequences of war. However, rather than focusing on reviving the draft, perhaps they should look at ways to captivate the attention of “children of our nation’s elite” and work to revive the Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC, at our country’s most selective colleges and universities.

At Brown University students choosing to join ROTC must take classes at Providence College. Harvard has a similar arrangement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The inconvenience of going to another campus coupled with the fact that some schools do not offer students credit for military science courses suggests these schools are either indifferent or hostile to the program. Cornell University is the only school in the Ivy League that offers ROTC for the Navy, Marines, Army, and Air Force. Even outside the Ivy League, the dominant symbol of New England elitism, students at Stanford University interested in the program are forced to take classes at nearby schools like Santa Clara University.

Most Ivy League schools abolished their ROTC programs as a result of the protest movement during the Vietnam War, when many student activists aimed their energy at eradicating the program. At Dartmouth College, students took over Parkhurst Hall in 1969 to protest the program, feeling that their university should not support the “morally reprehensible” activities of the United States military. Although many of these students were arrested and sent to jail, by 1970 ROTC was no longer part of campus life. The program was eventually restored in 1985. Brown University has a similar history, with a less-happy ending. In March of 1969, the faculty voted to deprive the naval and air force units of their departmental status. The faculty also ensured students would not receive academic credit from their classes and deprived officers of the professorial status. The navy and air force units soon left campus. In 1972, the last on-campus cadets were commissioned. Like at most other schools, the removal of the ROTC from campus was seen as the direct result of student disapproval of the U.S.’s policies in Vietnam.

Current disapproval of the program stems from the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. At Harvard University, several faculty resolutions illustrate this point. Since 1990, the faculty has attempted to bar the university from paying for students’ training at MIT and to prevent the ROTC commissioning ceremony from taking place in the Yard. The University has largely ignored these resolutions, and since 1995 donors have provided the funds for students to train at MIT. Concern over the Department of Defense’s policy towards homosexuals may be genuine, but it does not stop schools from receiving money from ROTC scholarships and other federal dollars.

Taking note of current attitudes toward the ROTC, lawmakers have responded to the problem. A bill passed by the House of Representatives in March of 2004 would deny Pentagon funding to schools that refuse to allow recruiters from the armed services equal access to students on campus, and makes it mandatory for universities to submit to the Secretary of Defense a report promising that they will support the ROTC. Although pressuring schools that receive funds into providing more institutional cooperation to students who want to participate in ROTC appears to be a step in the right direction, a recent court decision jeopardizes these plans. In a 2-1 decision, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found revoking federal funds from law schools that refused to grant military recruiters access to their campus was a violation of free speech rights.

It is time to bring ROTC back on Ivy League campuses or at least to pressure administrators to offer more support to these programs. Not only would it provide another way for students to serve their country, it is a virtual wet dream for class warriors like Rangel. Imagine having access to a polo shirt-wearing population of students where less than half are on financial aid, and where many hail from Exeter, Andover, and other posh private schools. The ultimate goal should be to keep our country’s voluntary military service intact. The best testament to the greatness of the United States of America is its citizens’ willingness to enlist without coercion to defend and protect their country—or at least to find the Department of Defense a better employer than McDonalds.