Bring ROTC back to Harvard and Yale

Starting with protests over the war in Vietnam and continuing through protests over the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, many of the nation’s most exclusive colleges and universities barred ROTC from their campuses. (You may recall that some conservatives held that against Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings; as the dean of Harvard’s law school, she had argued in favor of the policy.)
It’s time for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia and those other elite universities to bring back ROTC. Some college presidents — and military officials — have argued that too few students at those top universities would be interested in military careers to make opening an ROTC office cost-effective. From The NYT:

Eileen M. Lainez, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said Monday that it would be “premature to speculate” on plans for new R.O.T.C. units.

Diane H. Mazur, a law professor at the University of Florida and a former Air Force officer, said she doubted whether the military would reinstate the R.O.T.C. at Ivy League colleges because it is expensive to operate there, particularly for the relatively few number of students the services are likely to recruit.

“I think the military is much more persuaded by output, is much more persuaded by economic efficiency,” Ms. Mazur said.

Drew Faust, the president of Harvard, said over the weekend that she was looking forward to “pursuing discussions with military officials and others to achieve Harvard’s full and formal recognition of R.O.T.C..” . .
The Student Affairs Committee of the Columbia University Senate, a policy-making body of students, faculty members, administrators, alumni and others, said Monday that it had formed a Task Force on Military Engagement to consider whether the university should formally participate in the R.O.T.C.

Before making any decision, the committee said, it would conduct an opinion survey and hold hearings on the issue. The committee’s chairman, Tao Tan, said the process would be driven by students, rather than faculty members.

Several Columbia students said this week that while they would not object to the return of the R.O.T.C., they did not expect their classmates to show much interest in military careers.

“Most people come here to have a specific career,” said Alex Gaspard, 18, who hopes to go to law school. “Investment bankers or lawyers.”

Regardless, it is in the nation’s best interest to include among its military officers as many of the best-educated leaders as it can find. And some of those can be harvested from colleges such as Harvard and Yale.
There has been much concern, over recent decades, that the all-volunteer Armed Forces is increasingly different from the civilian nation that it serves — more religious, more conservative. (I’m not so sure that’s true, given the Pentagon’s survey on “Don’t Ask,” which showed that most troops were quite comfortable with having gays and lesbians serve openly.) One of the ways to ameliorate that trend is to be sure that the officer corps is recruited broadly, including recruitment from the elite universities.
— by Cynthia Tucker

360 comments Add your comment

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:21 pm

TruthBe:

But if the draft is involved, it can’t be women. The Supreme Court has already exempted them.

DannyX

December 22nd, 2010
5:22 pm

Scout why don’t bring back your famous “Military Times Poll.”

That’s always worth a few laughs.

Keep up the good fight!

December 22nd, 2010
5:23 pm

TruthBe…Worldwide, the majority of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections result from heterosexual transmission. In US, 35% of HIV is heterosexually acquired and 64% of heterosexually aquired HIV infestions in females.

Now do tell me….not many battlefields in the US right now. But even the heterosexual risk is significant. So again, the blood swap issue is just silly.

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:23 pm

They Both SUCK:

So have some Iowa farm boys that are into sheep. So what? Keep your mouth shut about it ……….. baaaa !

paleo-neo-Carlinist a/k/a Joe the Plutocrat

December 22nd, 2010
5:23 pm

God Bless America…

I’ll skip 1 and 2, but as far as #3, you are correct that WWII was (Studs Terkel) “a good war”. The mission was clear and we were in it to win it. But since the 1950’s and the emergence (see Ike’s Farewell Address) of the MIC, wars have been waged by profiteers and businessmen, and AfPak and Iraq are no exception. There is little regard for civilian deaths and collateral damage because quite frankly, there is little regard for the seriousness of placing soliders in harm’s way on the part of polcymakers (Bush AND Obama). they just don’t care.

As far as 4 goes, what’s your take on “putting steel” on friendlies? Fratricide (intentional or accidental) is about as common as “collateral damage”. Ask Pat Tilman or the Candian Special Forces troops “bombed” by the USAF in 2001. While fratricide certainly exited in WWII, the number of incidents in Vietnam and the first Gulf War, as well as Iraq and AfPak is nothing short of staggering.

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:24 pm

DannyX:

Do you mean Air Force computer programmers or Marine/Army infantry riflemen?

They BOTH SUCK

December 22nd, 2010
5:26 pm

Scout

Keep crying……… The law has changed……. Take it up with the Pentagon and the numerous Generals who wanted DADT repealed.

You anger and rants will change ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, but you are good for a few belly laughs………. thanks

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:28 pm

They both SUCK:

I thought we were talking “opinions” here not the law. Do you refuse to discuss anything challenging law?

paleo-neo-Carlinist a/k/a Joe the Plutocrat

December 22nd, 2010
5:28 pm

Scout, how many of your ‘nam brothers, with whom you shared canteens, blood and sweat, had syphillis, gonarhea, or other nasty infections, from unprotected sex with prostitutes? and what about your heterosexual platoon mates who performed anal sex on female partners?

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:30 pm

I don’t have to worry about it anymore. It’s the guys in the trenches who have to deal with it.

America’s military has peaked …… the news said today that one in four recruitees can’t even pass the entrance exam.

Keep up the good fight!

December 22nd, 2010
5:32 pm

I don’t have to worry about it anymore. It’s the guys in the trenches who have to deal with it

Sir Scout gets backed into a corner with his nonsense and trash and “bravely” runs away.

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:33 pm

Paleo:

Oh, there were a few who caught somethng and they were pulled from the field.

Regarding your last sentence, why don’t you start a movement (no pun intended) for that group. You know ……. equal rights and all.

They BOTH SUCK

December 22nd, 2010
5:33 pm

@Scout

State your opinion all you like………. It is not going to change

The Repubs who just hammered the Dems in Congress last month wont even bring the issue back up. You might have one or two Congressmen who would like too, but the Repubs who will head the committees starting next year will not even let it out of committee.

You have your right to any opinion you like, but you don’t have the right to your own ‘facts’……….

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:34 pm

Keep up the Good Fight:

Yawn …………..

GT/MIT

December 22nd, 2010
5:35 pm

This forum has gotten so far off target with the focus shifting to DADT that the importance of the original topic is completely lost. I shall be eternally grateful to the USN for the educational opportunity afforded me through the ROTC program. The military obligation after graduation was a small price to pay, and was an enjoyable part of my life. The reactivation of my Carrier Attack Wing by order of LBJ, not so much!

At any rate, the ROTC programs open many doors to those inclined to participate. The catch, it ain’t all that easy.

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:35 pm

SUCK:

If a career male soldier decides he wants to female who pays for it ………. and the new uniforms ?

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:38 pm

SUCK:

Wait until the whiners (and they are good at that) start complaining about not getting promoted (whether they should have or not), etc.

Let the games begin.

DannyX

December 22nd, 2010
5:38 pm

Scout a year ago you hit every single ajc blog on the subject guaranteeing everyone this wouldn’t be repealed. You must be really let down by your leaders that you had so much trust in. It had to have been shocking to see the results of the poll. You must have felt betrayed as one military leader after another said the policy needed to be changed. Poll after poll reaffirmed strong public support for repeal

How did you get things so wrong Scout? From public support, to military tolerance, to the speed in which it happened.

How did you get things so wrong Scout?

Scout

December 22nd, 2010
5:43 pm

DannyX:

Simple. The country is in severe moral decline. It just happened a little faster on this subject than some of us thought.

Well, the “female” gunny has given me some assignments and I must go.

“Forward ……… March ! (you too pretty boy)”

They BOTH SUCK

December 22nd, 2010
5:43 pm

Scout

All your far-fetched examples that will end up being such a small percentage will be handled by the military and the policies pertaining to that issue………….

So keep up the good fight………… It is funny to say the least………..

You would make a great right talk show host: Hyperbole and hot air is surely your something you excel at

Write your Congressman, Senators, President and the Generals at the Pentagon…………. They will take your ‘opinion’ under careful consideration……………………

They BOTH SUCK

December 22nd, 2010
5:56 pm

@Scout

What planet do you live on? People in both public and private sectors complain about not being promoted, ‘whether they should have or not’. That is nothing new and is done by all races, both sexes, creeds, religious views, straights and gays.

That was such a weak example and analogy. Pick up your game

The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar

December 22nd, 2010
5:59 pm

Based on our military’s performance over the last 50 or so years, it’s very evident we need much smarter people in the military. So this is a good idea.

The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar

December 22nd, 2010
6:04 pm

Without exception, the homosexuals I know are infinitely smarter than the homophobes I know.

As a general rule, the dumbest homosexual is just as smart as the smartest homophobe. So the end of DADT can only improve our military.

They BOTH SUCK

December 22nd, 2010
6:07 pm

@ The Real

Your last post places you in the same ignorant category as Scout… Opposing view but both of you very ignorant or just like getting a rise out of people.

can you at least post with some sort of intelligence and not “Trash’

Tom

December 22nd, 2010
6:07 pm

This should be my last comment on DADT!! Unfortunately I believe this policy will lead to a lot fights between straight and openly gay military members. Men that join the military are normally very agressive type people and can be ticked off easily. First time some gay member says something crude or makes unwarranted advances, the trouble will start and sides will be picked by service personnel. This is not your pink military, it is made up of tough men and women!! This is the real world not some fantasy military. Let’s just wait and see, hope I am wrong but I doubt it. Good day, Gentlemen

God Bless America... and no one else

December 22nd, 2010
6:09 pm

Paleo, I can tell you that at the Battalion and Company level, there is an extreme regard for collateral damage. It still happens, as does Blue on Blue and Blue on Green fire. Much of the fratricide is due to the non-linearity of today’s battlefield. As such, control measures are used to limit opportunities for that type of incident, but it obviously still happens. The fog of war often puts men and units where they aren’t supposed to be, arduous terrain makes it hard to determine the direction of enemy fire, and asymmetrical warfare in third-world nations contributed t mis-identification of Host and Friendly Force nations’ troops. Most of these issues were not a problem before Vietnam, but the nature of war changes.

The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar

December 22nd, 2010
6:31 pm

Seriously, our military needs to cast a much wider net for its leadership.

The service academies are full of people fighting and strategerizing the last war, and the leadership is an incestuous bureaucratic echo chamber – it takes them decades to change direction, there is little valuing or encouraging of innovation, etc. – so providing future military leaders with superior Ivy League educations – and the military with the high quality of people that are capable of securing Ivy League degrees – is a excellent method of shaking up the hidebound mediocre bureaucracy that has passed for military leadership since Westmoreland and MacNamara.

With regard to our enlisted forces, homophobia (along with racism and xenophobia) is highly correlative with low IQ and low education. Allowing gays to serve in the military will provide the services with a higher quality of enlistee than the homophobes they are getting now.

Keep up the good fight!

December 22nd, 2010
6:37 pm

okay…a little off topic (like this blog is not already) but:

That hope and change thing seems to be working just fine right now!

TGT

December 22nd, 2010
7:20 pm

So hope and change is back on track?

Is it really any kind of a significant accomplishment (or surprising) that Obama is getting pieces of his liberal agenda through a lame duck, significantly democratic congress? It’s kind of like the football team that racks up the yards and scores a couple of touchdowns after getting blasted for 3 quarters and getting down by 40 points.

Let’s see how the “hope and change” is working out come Jan. 5.

Chris

December 22nd, 2010
7:39 pm

Let me get this straight. First liberals want military recruiters off campus. Now you want them to back on campus? Really? Having a hard time making up mind? While it is welcome news why the flip flop? Is there a new poll out that says this is a good liberal idea that I missed?

barking frog

December 22nd, 2010
7:49 pm

Have we missed them? I don’t think so. College
grads can become 90 day wonders without ROTC.
It’s just that with ROTC students the military pays
the school. Just follow the money.

Death of the Dollar

December 22nd, 2010
8:30 pm

We have more Admirals than Ships: An Admiral is one who commands a fleet of ships. Naval operations have become more complex with aircraft, yet how many Admirals does a modern Navy need? Our Navy has shrunk from almost 600 ships in the Reagan era to 288 deployable battle force ships today, even though the Navy’s budget is now bigger (even adjusting for inflation.) The main reasons are that sailors earn twice as much and shipyards charge much more. Another reason is that we have even more Admirals than during the Reagan years. We have 350 Admirals for our 288 ships! Keep in mind that an Admiral does not command an individual ship, but a fleet of ships.

Admirals are expensive because each one has a personal aide, a secretary, and a driver. They prefer flying around in ultra-expensive military executive jets, rather than mixing with the rabble to fly commercial first class. Cutting the number of Admirals would save money, but Congress needs to ask why 49% of Navy ships are always deployed. There is no imminent threat of war. Admirals deploy ships because it’s fun to play war games and visit ships at sea. Yet this high “optempo” burns up fuel and wears out ships and crews. Congress should cut funding for Navy “steaming days” to save our Navy from its Admirals, and cut the number of Admirals too.

Old Gold

December 22nd, 2010
8:41 pm

There will be a big drop off in military recruiting!

budman

December 22nd, 2010
8:59 pm

The people on this blog often prove they know something about history just not much..do the vets have a better voice in the government/society etc.today. Yep !! said that last year year about Ga. tech robberies and was raked over the coals by bloggers about being a redneck gunslinger. I have quietly waited as it has gotten much worse. I found out as a young man how to defend myself in Quang Tri Provence Vietnam. Should Gays serve..GD come on people!! the Greeks had a homosexual fighting outfit a thousand years before the birth of Christ. Everyone in history thinks they efing invented it. I am old enough to know Vietnam combat vets who are gay..big deal.
I still believe their should be some distention among the ranks, there should always be some in the back off the formation yelling that was a stupid idea. I have heard there will be an all woman submarine in the future..big deal..I just pity their enemies!!

Keep up the good fight!

December 22nd, 2010
9:09 pm

TGT….I know you must not have looked at the scoreboard much and yes it will be more difficult without the majority in the house, but not impossible. As Lindsay Graham says “Harry Reid has just eaten our lunch”.

the past 3 qtrs? Hmmm…most productive Congress in 50 years and that was before the lame duck.

Guess we’ll see what happens. You are so far off so far, I certainly would not trust your predictions.

TGT

December 22nd, 2010
9:36 pm

The “most productive Congress in 50 years” suffered the greatest election loss in over 70 years, with even greater losses in the Statehouses. I guess America didn’t see it as all that “productive.”

slade

December 22nd, 2010
10:07 pm

the military is a socialist jobs program for those who can’t obtain a GED

Keith

December 22nd, 2010
10:08 pm

Two years of public service should be required of all young adults by age 25, military being one option. Students pursuing advanced degrees (I would exclude law degrees, too many already) could delay the requirement.

dcb

December 22nd, 2010
10:13 pm

To dougmo2 – In response to your statement “While I agree with this article your premise is wrong. Young adults do not wish to go to an elite school to join ROTC.”

Having served as a high school college counselor I think you have missed the major point. By far the major reason for high school students being interested in the college ROTC program has been financial. Students gaining entrance to an elite school would be interested in ROTC – interested as a means of paying for it.

oldguy

December 22nd, 2010
10:49 pm

with all the warm huggie/feelies showering down let me be one of the first to “spit in the soup” (a great quote from Wilhelm I in WW1).
CT: you mis the point, the Elite U students (and particularly teachers) HATE the military!! I’ve seen it for years. Hopefully they will not bring ROTC back to their Us.
Do you know what we called OCS and ROTC “butter bars” in Viet Nam? Mine detectors!
I was a drafted SSgt in the 607th MPs Siagon I have a 4 year Engineering degree from a well known Engineering School but I chose not to go OCS (my commanders tried repeatedly to get me to go) because I would have had to enlist (many others did the same).
point: 2Lts are considered (by most military) as the lowest of the low.
BTW: what does “openly” mean? cohabitating in base housing? transexual housing? lipstick and makeup in “C” rations? Do we reestablish the WAC uniform as official casual choice for gays?
Just saying
P.S. I served with guys that were gay – the difference was that they could not be overtly gay.

Tommy Maddox

December 22nd, 2010
11:05 pm

Phooey on the Ivy League.

As for The REAL fellow, just say no to peyote.

Tommy Maddox

December 22nd, 2010
11:08 pm

Oh yes, SLADE, then get off your donkey and get out there and protect this place with whatever education you possess.

« The end of not-telling Outpost19

December 23rd, 2010
1:23 am

[...] by Congress last week, op-eds have turned to the impact of ROTC returning to many colleges. For Cynthia Tucker at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that could mean a more representative officer corps, while at [...]

Rufus

December 23rd, 2010
8:33 am

And that just frosts your butt doesn’t it, Cynthia?

pajama pants

December 23rd, 2010
8:40 am

hopey-changey defeats fear-cynicism….

Zinger

December 23rd, 2010
8:43 am

Where was this article during the last administration? Are you suggesting that DADT is the reason for excluding ROTC from college campuses. Are you suggesting that a better educated military is now a possibility because we allow gays to openly serve? I doubt it. It is nothing but a convenient way for you to explain your new point of view. Somehow I think that this is another ATB (All Things Barack).

JKL2

December 23rd, 2010
8:49 am

The ROTC Dept is set up by the military, not the college. Since the Ivy league is not the target audience, it wouldn’t be cost effective (like the officer said). I know this democrat audience doesn’t understand business principles and will want to force the issue without any regard to cost/benefit because they think it’s a “neat idea”.

The main reason to open campuses back up to recruiting is because college drop outs are the target market for the enlisted ranks (like Dr Laura’s kid). Smart enough to go to college but not a good fit for the higher education system.

Lil' Barry Bailout

December 23rd, 2010
8:52 am

Keep Up

Yes, bring us more colleges that teach dinosaurs and men walked the earth together
——————————

Or those that teach our kids that America is the source of all evil in the world, a central belief of the Idiot Messiah and today’s Democrat party.

JKL2

December 23rd, 2010
8:57 am

the Both- All your far-fetched examples that will end up being such a small percentage will be handled by the military and the policies pertaining to that issue………….

Like we had under the old DADT policy?

JKL2

December 23rd, 2010
9:01 am

the REAL clueless superstar- Based on our military’s performance over the last 50 or so years, it’s very evident we need much smarter people in the military. So this is a good idea.

The greatest fighting force in the history of man. It obviously needs changing. Thanks Demwits! Do your best to screw up what works in the name of political correctness.