University of Virginia Library

Wilkinson Declares Candidacy For U.S. Congress

Faculty Tables ROTC Report As Acceptance Feared

90-88 Margin
On Test Vote
Implies Passage

By Donn Kessler
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

In a meeting wrought with emotional
debate and impassioned reason, the
Faculty of the College of Arts and
Sciences last night defeated a motion
supporting a previous action ending
degree credit for the Reserve Officers
Training Corps and then adjourned
without voting on a plan for a six-credit
hour ROTC program.

The meeting had begun quietly
enough with Richard T. Selden, chairman
of the Special Committee on ROTC
presenting the first of two
recommendations to the Faculty.

The committee was formed by a
resolution last December to "investigate
various possibilities of retaining ROTC on
a non-degree credit basis."

The committee recommended that the
College grant "six hours of credit toward
graduation to ROTC courses. The Faculty
in December had taken away all degree
hours from ROTC effective September
1971.

Expressed Fear

The committee had further expressed
the fear that if degree credit was taken
away from ROTC, the programs might leave the
University.

John Israel, an associate professor of
history, objected to consideration of the
motion, stating that the committee had
misinterpreted its mandate.

Mr. Israel stated that the committee had
assumed their purpose was to keep ROTC on
the Grounds at all costs, while they were only
to investigate the retaining of ROTC on a
non-degree credit basis.

The motion to end all consideration of the
proposal failed by a vote of 104-70.

Discussion was then heard on the committee
recommendation.

Dante Germino, a professor in the
government department, asked whether ROTC
restrictions on students were compatible with
the academic freedom at the University. Mr.
Germino specified the restrictions on haircuts,
the membership in certain organizations, and
the restrictions on the choice of major by
ROTC cadets.

Walter C. Blattman, the head of the Navy
ROTC program, stated that the restrictions
were not as limiting as Mr. Germino had
suggested.

Mr. Germino then asked Mr. Selden whether
he "believed that instruction in the means of
destroying human life was valid on a university
campus." Mr. Selden stated that he believed
that such study was valid as it was tied to
national defense.

Mental Gymnastics

David Flaherty, an assistant professor of
history, then asked how the committee had
achieved "such mental gymnastics" in stating
that the ROTC courses had a large measure of
local autonomy when course outlines,
objectives, and bibliographies for courses were
supplied by the Pentagon.

Mr. Selden stated that ROTC instructors did
not have to use these materials as long as they
met the objectives handed down from
Washington.

John E. Craig, an acting assistant professor
of history, came out in favor of the proposal.

He stated that he felt that the programs gave
the students "a good deal" and that by keeping
the military at the University, the faculty
would be helping to keep the military under
some civilian control through college educated
officers.

William Harbaugh, a professor of history,
stated that he opposed the recommendation.

"From my own personal experience, I can
state that the 90 day wonders of World War II
were just as well trained as ROTC cadets." Mr.
Harbaugh continued by stating that "it is
fallacious to assume that the security of the
nation is in any way related to the way we vote
on ROTC today."

Responding to the point that ROTC
liberalized the army with college educated
officers, Robert J. Morgan, a professor of
government, stated that "citizen soldiers have
provided the manpower for the battlefield not
the people who decide on policy."

Mr. Morgan added that he felt by voting
down the recommendation, the Faculty would
not be a radical faculty but a conservative one
for it would preserve and not destroy "the
political traditions of this nation."

Substitute Recommendation

Woodford D. McClellan of the history
department then proposed a substitute
recommendation that the faculty support its
previous stand to deny degree credit for ROTC
but attempt to keep ROTC at the University on
a non-degree basis.

In support of his motion, Mr. McClellan
stated that the committee report was
"contradictory at points," a "disservice to the
faculty" and a "180 degree reversal of true
fact."

Mr. Israel added that the committee had not
proven that if degree credit was taken away, the
programs would withdraw.

William L. Breit of the economics
department stated that the elimination of
degree credit would probably mean the loss of
the programs and that ROTC did contribute to
the humanizing of the armed forces.

An amendment was then offered to Mr.
McClellan's proposal stating that no degree
credit would be offered ROTC courses unless
they were approved by the Faculty. The
amendment was defeated by a voice vote.

In the vote on Mr. McClellan's motion, 89
members of the faculty voted in favor and 91
against. A recount was then taken and the
motion was defeated by a vote of 90-88. A
rough count showed 13 ROTC-faculty members
voting.

A motion was then made to adjourn the
meeting because of the existence of further
amendments that members might wish to
present to the committee and because certain
members feared the passage of the committee
proposal.

The meeting was adjourned by a close vote
of 89-87. No date was set for any special
faculty meetings before its next meeting on
May 19.