University of Virginia Library

A Different Point Of View On ROTC

certain laws which must be met if
ROTC is to be retained in the
academic community. Firstly, according
to Public Law 88-647,
chapter 2102, no ROTC unit may
be retained unless the senior commissioned
officer assigned to that
unit is accorded the rank of
professor. Secondly, by the judgment
of the American Association
of University Professors, faculty
status may only be given to persons
by procedures applicable to the
faculty as a whole. This apparent
dilemma is solved quite simply at
the University of Virginia. Every
commanding officer of each ROTC
unit is reviewed by the University
and is found either fit or unfit to
assume the academic rank of
professor. Similarly, members of
the ROTC units who teach ROTC
courses are processed for qualifying
academic standards. The University
has the prerogative to deny these
positions to anyone suggested by
any branch of the service. This
selection procedure continues until
a man is found who meets the
qualifications presented by the
University. By Public Law 88-647,
chapter 2102, if this academic rank
or all academic credit is denied
ROTC, then ROTC at this university
is untenable.

Keeping these limitations in
mind, one can now examine the
relevancy, or irrelevancy, of ROTC
with all the consequences in mind.
The following material comes from
the "University of Virginia Official
Report of the Student Curriculum
Evaluation Committee 1968-1969."
According to the introduction of
this booklet each course (College of
Arts and Sciences) is evaluated in
three specific areas:

1. Overall - Above to Below
Average (1-3)

2. Grading - Easy to Difficult
(1-3)

3. Workload - Light to Heavy
(1-3)

Since space does not permit, I will
only consider the overall assessment.
(If one is interested in
studying this topic in more depth, a
copy of this booklet may be
obtained by writing Newcomb Hall,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia. The price is 50.52
plus handling.) In the Department
of Military Sciences the following
evaluations were received:

1. Air Science 23 - 1.6

2. Air Science 33 - 1.76

3. Air Science 43 - 1.85

4. Military Science 11 - 1.94

5. Military Science 21 - 1.95

6. Naval Science 11 - 1.47 (One
instructor)

7. Naval Science 11 2.00 (Different
instructor)

8. Naval Science 32 - 2.11

9. Naval Science 35 - None
available

10. Naval Science 43 - 1.94

All other subjects require for
commission are obtained from
University taught subjects.

All these subjects compared
favorably in overall assessment with
other University taught subjects. In
most cases total assessment appeared
to be greater than other
University taught subjects, for
which academic credit was also
given. If non-accreditation is to be
discussed should not ROTC evaluation
fall well below total evaluation
of courses offered for credit? It was
mentioned that this evaluation was
compiled from replied of students
taking these courses. Then exactly
what type of student is taking these
courses which the ROTC offer? I
think this is best answered by an
example. Naval ROTC Midshipmen
in the Regular program are picked
from a field of over 20,000
applicants a year. Each year of
these twenty odd thousand only
1,500 are selected to attend any
one of the fifty-four units from
which each individual is able to
choose. This is to say that only
seven and one half percent are
considered qualified scholastically,
mentally, and physically to participate
under a scholarship program
in the United States Navy. Likewise
members are chosen from the
University each year who must
meet the same qualifications as the
scholarship holder but do not
receive any scholarship benefits
until their last two years. The latter
group form the bulk of the units at
the University of Virginia and at
the universities across the nation. At
this university both of those groups
are representative of the student
body, either members participating
in all phases of university life from
student council down through various
clubs and organizations. From an
academic subjects.

ROTC unlike it is believed, did
not force itself into the academic
community. The University requested
its presence here through
application. It entered into an agreement
with the government and was
not in any way forced to accept
ROTC. In return the University has
received students of extremely fine
quality and financial support to
these students which would cost
the institution over six million
dollars to replace completely. Its
Navy unit has grown to be the third
largest in the United States and is
recognized for its all qualified
citizen-soldier.

In conclusion, may I present the
major points to consider concerning
ROTC Firstly, anyone who supports
"academic freedom" but the
abolishment of ROTC is in direct
contradiction to his beliefs that the
termination of one's right to serve his
country while in school or at a later
date becomes no choice at all. How
can one choose when there is no
choice? Pseudo-academic freedom
witnessed by an elimination of ROTC
is exemplary of the irrational rather
than the rational. If you oppose
ROTC you do not have to choose
it. Secondly, as "neutral" as a
University seems to be, or as neutral as
one might want it to be, it is not.
All universities receive money from
the government in some form o
another. Private institutions receive
tax exemptions, and most probably
rants for research, or loans. Larger
Universities receive as much as this
if not more. Noting this as well as
the conclusion drawn by other
noted academic bodies, doesn't it
seem that the University should have
obligation to at least provide
choices to students who feel obligated
to serve their country if that
is their wish? Thirdly, the armed
services are a tool of the people. They
are directly controlled by the
governing body elected by the
people. If abolishment of the
military is to ever be realized, it
should be realized through a
democratic process. To this end it is
necessary to have the citizen-soldier
who is willing to assume either of
his alternative roles with equal
ability when the need arises. Otherwise
the integrity of this United States
armed services which has always
been taken for granted may collapse
around us, placing us in a
position from which there is no
extraction. Lastly, rationality should
be the basis of our judgement not
emotion. All contingencies should
be surveyed, and the knowledge we
have at hand used to plan for the
future. The forcing of ROTC from
this university to others of lower
standards could result in a situation
far worse than the one we are faced
with today.

I am a member of Naval ROTC
at the University of Virginia and
through this paper wish to express
concern over what we are confronted
with today. Its existence
should justify my ability even as a
member of the armed service to
participate in this community on an
open level. This paper no way reflects
military opinion as such. These are
conclusions which I have drawn
through my own research and am
presenting to the public in general.
I think everyone who reads this will
duly understand its implications
and alternatives if ROTC is denied a
position on the Grounds of the
University of Virginia or another
university. The paper presents a
different point of view than is most
frequently voiced. A point of view
which I think is most accepted at
this school yet rarely heard.