Harvard, the stalwart Ivy League bastion of academia, objects to the presence of the U.S. Army’s Reserve Officers Training Corps on its campus.
In 1969, the Harvard faculty kicked ROTC off campus as a protest against the Vietnam War. In 1995, the faculty cut off all funding to ROTC, citing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals. Harvard’s ROTC candidates drill at MIT, across the Charles River in Boston.
Harvard is not alone in banishing ROTC. Other Ivy League universities followed Harvard’s lead in creating “ROTC-free” zones: Yale, Stanford, Columbia and Brown among them.
Certain commentators have argued, even before the September 11th horrors, that universities refusing to permit ROTC activities on campus should be denied federal funds. In the wake of the disaster, some of these cries have gained strength.
Frankly, I think it’s worth discussing. If a university accepts federal funds, it ought not to completely ban ROTC. A privately funded university, of course, has every right to accept or reject whatever they please.
Sure - and what is ROTC, if not education? Just as a computer science major prepares someone for a career in computing, so does ROTC prepare someone for a career as a military officer.
http://clhe.org/mil-recru.htm
The Solomon Amendment, passed in 1995, denied federal aid to schools that didn’t allow ROTC. I think it was amended later to allow students attending financial aid.
:shrug: True enough. But while universities are the only source of a “university” education, ROTC is not the only source of training for military officers.
I guess I’m just a bit concerned at the precedent that might be set. Should we also cut funding to High Schools without a JROTC program?
Precisely. Harvard does not wish to provide that program, much as (this is a guess here) Harvard does not accept any funding the U.S. government provides for large-animal veterinary education. No one considers cutting off Harvard’s funding for refusing to have a large-animal veterinary program.
The reasons for Harvard’s decisions in the two areas are obviously quite different, but the results are the same, and it is improper to punish mental state when the actions are neutral.
This is a good argument against federal funding for education. It gives the Feds too much control over private colleges.
In my opinion, a college has a social obligation to provide ROTC, since it helps promote the defence of our nation. Similarly, I think a college has a social obligation to make some effort at diversity.
However, I would prefer a world where colleges could make their own choices about how to conduct themselves, rather than allow the Feds to require a college to do “right,” as some bureaucrats define it.
Unfortunately, my wish is unrealistic. Thanks to federal funding, colleges will continue to be forced to operate in whatever way the current Washington power elite dictates.
december - I decided not to address that issue, as I didn’t want to hijack the tread. But now that you have done so …
I agree about federal funding, though I do see as an alternative that the feds simply fund the students, not the schools (perhaps at a higher level than they do now, to make up for some of the loss of direct funding).
As to the ROTC issue, in general I don’t disagree, but I think there is some nuance there.
the school is unwilling to support such a curriculum
Unfortunately, there is no way to determine which is going on.
Yes, it’s hypocritical of a school to refuse to carry a ROTC program while accepting federal funds, but I think it’s also the right of any school to determine what educational programs they are supporting–as was given, the idea of large-animal veterinary care, or other agricultural sciences, for instance, might not be feasible at, say, NYU. Similarly, a small school may not have the ability to muster a really good high-energy particle physics or radioastronomy program–or a ROTC program.
“Yes, it’s hypocritical of a school to refuse to carry a ROTC program while accepting federal funds”
I just don’t see this at all.
Bricker says:
A privately funded university, of course, has every right to accept or reject whatever they please.
Harvard certainly accepts federal money I cannot image any school with a largish research department not getting federal money in some way. Probably any school at all gets federal funds due to things like Pell grants and various tuition assistance programs.
I don’t see why it is hypocritical to refuse ROTC at all, unless the funds were earmarked specifically for the purpose of footing the ROTC bill. Likewise I do not believe that federal funds should be contingent on, say, universities performing potentially objectionable research into the fabrication of nuclear weapons.
Hmm, an educated electorate with skills, intelligence, and the ability to lead this country politically and economically sounds like “giving something back” to me.
I don’t believe so, the quote uses or not and to separate the conditions. Apparently Harvard has broken the first condition, but not the third. A school does not have to break all three conditions, only one of them.
[Lawyer hat ON] Your analysis is incorrect. the use of “or” means that the DoD must identify only those institutions of higher ed that do not allow at least one of the given alternatives. [Lawyer hat OFF]
If I may pose a question, in light of the OP. How does this differ from VMI training female Cadets at Mary Washington College (a “separate but equal” environment), than Harvard not supporting the ROTC? Was VMI determined to be more public than Harvard, or something similar?
Well for starters, Harvard is choosing to exclude a program at the university, while VMI was choosing to exclude a whole class of people from the programs at their university…
