University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

The Faculty, Military
And ROTC

By Woodford D. McClellan
Associate Professor of History

There seems little point in
becoming embroiled in the dispute
between Professor Selden and Mr.
Cullen, but since the ROTC
question still puzzles many students
and faculty a few comments may
be in order.

The composition of the Selden
Committee interests me less than
the issue involved, but of course it
is not without relevance that two
members of that Committee stand
in a financial and disciplinary
relationship the Department of the
Navy. Their presence on a
committee charged with
investigating an issue related to the
military would certainly seem to
constitute a clear and direct
conflict of interest.

But it is enough to note that
there can be a question here; the
Selden Committee should not be
challenged for its composition but
for its analysis and
recommendations. I wish to take up
the committee's reasons for
recommending six hours of degree
credit for each ROTC unit.

(1) The Selden Committee
"thinks" (but does not know for
sure) that the Navy would certainly
leave if degree credit is withdrawn,
and "thinks" (but does not know
for sure) that the Air Force and
Army "might" or "would
probably" or "may" leave. Upon
this uncertain, flimsy basis, and on
the basis of (frankly) threats from
the military, the Selden Committee
asks the faculty to reverse its
December 1969 decision to remove
degree credit.

We may legitimately ask, who
the hell runs this shop, the faculty
or the military? Our business
education, and we, the faculty,
have the right and the duty to
determine the conditions under
which education proceeds. In
December we determined that the
ROTC units could stay, but no
degree credit would be granted for
their courses after June 1971. The
Selden Committee interpreted its
charge as an invitation to sit in
judgement upon that decision (the
withdrawal of degree credit);
several score faculty members have
a different understanding of the
meaning of the English language.

(2) The Selden Committee feels
that ROTC offers a way to avoid
the draft, cash, and a chance to
pursue a career. One notes here that
the institution, i.e., the University,
is not in the business of
circumventing the draft; that is up
to the individual. If a student
wishes to take ROTC he can do so,
and if his wish is strong enough he
will do it without degree credit (can
the Selden Committee disprove this
statement? Not on the basis of
experience at other institutions).

Financial support: a meaningless
argument, since the University has
over $600,000 dollars in financial
support (not counting loans)
available each year. A career? What
does the Committee think ROTC
stands for? This is the reserve, not
the regular army, or navy, or
force. This career argument involves
a sophism which the faculty clearly
finds inadmissible.

(3) ROTC as a "useful device for
recruiting superior students." Of all
the Selden Committee arguments,
this one is the most preposterous.
No top-notch university in this
country (or in any country in the
world) recruits on the basis of the
availability of ROTC.

Some enthusiastic staff members
might indeed make such a claim,
but it is neither the policy nor the
general practice of the University of
Virginia. Students come here
because they believe the University
to be a superior institution of
learning; it is, and they are not
mistaken, and we do not need any
ROTC to help us out.

(4) The "broader social
concern." Regret and lament it all
you like, this country must defend
itself, and that means and officer
corps. Where will these officers
come from? Let us make one thing
clear: contrary to the false and
misleading impression spread by the
Selden Committee, the Faculty of
the College of Arts and Sciences has
never voted to abolish ROTC.

In December of 1969 that
Faculty voted to retain ROTC on a
no degree credit basis; in other
words, students will have ROTC if
they so desire, but no ROTC course
will count toward the 120 hours
required for graduation. ROTC
grades, always notoriously high,
will continue (to the regret of many
of the faculty, who have however
accepted this compromise) to figure
in a student's GPA.

So the ROTC units at the
University would continue to
produce officers each year. But that
does not strike at the heart of the
problem; on the contrary, it
deliberately avoids it.

Since 1963, the Department of
defense, and the various services,
have been considering (mostly in
secret committees, of which I have
some outdated personal knowledge)
the possibility of adopting a
program modelled on the extremely
successful and respected Marine