University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

The Other Side Of ROTC

By Kristan Allen

In the past we have heard
arguments which oppose the continued
existence of ROTC at the
University of Virginia. Many of
these ploys have been constructed
around moral, academic, and
pseudo-factual arguments which
seem, at least at first glance, to
reflect the opinion of many of the
students. It will be my purpose to
present to you the other side of the
argument.

In my three years at the
University of Virginia, never have I
encountered a poll of the students
whose purpose it was to find out
how many of the students felt that
the waging of war was a good thing.
I dare say that such a poll would be
unnecessary for the answers are
obvious. Yet there has been a
continued impetus by the antiROTC
faction to causally relate
ROTC and the "trained killer."
This, besides being a logical fallacy,
in no way measures the credo of
the members of the organization or
the justification for the organizations
abolishment. In a report
presented by Midshipman Charles
Hooper to the Annual Convention
of the Reserve Officer's Association
this past summer. Mr. Hooper
correctly points out that the major
moral, political case against ROTC
is its "war-relatedness." He emphasizes
that this "...case must be
presented to the academicians who
then decide on the program's
academic fate. In reality, the
student political criticism presented
against the ROTC breaks down
when evaluated from this standpoint.
The opposition knows this.
Therefore, the organizations trying
to abolish ROTC try to hit as close
to the issue as possible and try the
next best approach by making their
main stand against 'academic credibility.'
" Therefore, we find the
opposition translating a political or
moral conviction into an academic
criteria of incompetence.

Before we investigate these assertions,
it would be most enlightening
to investigate the exact
function of ROTC on the college
campus, as well as the organizations
it serves. In several reports submitted
this summer to the ROTC
committees at various schools
(notably Duke, Rochester, Stanford,
and Princeton, to name a few)
several important conclusions were
brought to the front. Let it be
known that these investigations
were held independently of one
another, and are in no way related
except in their findings. For convenience
I submit some of these
findings directly from the "Duke
Report:"

The "Duke Report" further concludes
that "...Duke should not
exclude ROTC from the campus, or
do the same thing in an indirect
way, by laying down conditions
(such as barring all credit for ROTC
courses of whatever character) that
would make the continued existence
of the programs on campus
impossible or intolerable."

Noting that the "Duke Report"
is exemplary of other such reports,
as has been mentioned, one can see
that it is felt by several eminent
academic bodies that the retention
of ROTC is a must for a viable
armed services whose standard is
integrity. At present the Department
of Defense has applications
from 335 schools requesting ROTC
programs. There are at present 448
ROTC programs at 353 schools.
Over 200,000 young men are
enrolled in ROTC. Last year the
various programs graduated 21,000
officers into the armed services. For
example, last year the reserve
program of the Navy profiled over
1,300 officers to the fleet. The
Regular (scholarship) program graduates
approximately 1,300 officer's
to the fleet (Regular Navy),
300 more than the Naval Academy.
Over 50% of the officers assuming
the rank of Commander were
ROTC trained. This knowledge
alone coupled with the fact that the
army depends even more on their
ROTC program than the Navy,
should be sufficient evidence to
prove the existence and necessity of
the citizen-soldier.

This brings us to the academic
status of ROTC. Let it be mentioned
at this point that there are