The Cavalier daily. :: Friday, May 16, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

During the past several months, the
question of ROTC status has been raised at
a dozen or so schools, and more recently,
here at the University. Before getting
emotionally involved in any movement to
eliminate or even change ROTC, we would
do well to examine the issue in detail.

Among reasoning men there can be little
question that existence of a military force is
necessary for the maintenance of peace; and
in case of war, for the defense of our
national interests. You may disagree with
the definition of "national interests," but
that being a political question is not
pertinent to this discussion. The infusion of
officers with a broad liberal education into
the armed forces is an absolute necessity if
we are to keep from developing a narrow
professional army with a high stake in
militarism.

The influence of the civilian-soldier must
be maintained if our country is to survive.
For those who question the influence of the
ROTC commissioned officer on the armed
services, by reason of their not staying in
long enough or not rising to high enough
rank, I offer the following facts:

- Of the Army Generals on active duty,
29.9% are ROTC graduates and over 35% of
the rest of the officer corps is from ROTC.

- Eight of the major field assignments in
Vietnam are held by ROTC commissioned
officers. They command over half of the
more than 500,000 men in Vietnam.

- The Navy has 18 Rear Admirals of
ROTC origin. It is also noteworthy that
those men commissioned by the ROTC but
deciding against a military career, rise to
influential policy making positions in
greater numbers than would be expected.
From the 14% of college men who have
received Army ROTC training have come
14% of our State Governors and 16% of our
Congressmen.

At a time when students are clamoring
for a greater say in the running of their
universities and the country, and want to
have some influence on policy and decision
making, it seems paradoxical that these
same students want to eliminate their
influence on the military. It would seem
that consistency would dictate they encourage
joining of ROTC in order to effect some
influence on the apparent military policy
with which they are displeased.

Another standard argument has been
that the existence of ROTC is not
compatible with the concept of goal of a
university. The fact of the matter is that a
large number of students are here to prepare
themselves for the future and to take their
place in the real world.

While you may be opposed to war (and
who isn't?), our national involvement in
Vietnam is nonetheless fact, as is the draft.
The likelihood that many students will be
called upon for military service is quite
strong. The university, therefore, has as
much of an obligation to help prepare
students for this aspect of their future as for
their long term careers.

I find it difficult to comprehend how
one can factor, in fact work diligently for,
university involvement in the great issues of
our time while concurrently working to
expel from its midst those "militarists"
whom t maintains need redirection and
guidance the most. How can you seek an
enlightened military while trying to deprive
it of an enlightened leadership?

The last argument that has been heard
several times over the past several months is
that if ROTC is kept, academic credit
should not be given for it. A reason given is
that the military officers are not qualified to
join a university faculty, because of
insufficient education, teaching experience,
etc.

I find a military officer that has lived in
the real world, that is sincerely interested
and experienced in the subject matter he is
teaching, who is teaching a course where the
students are there on a voluntary basis, far
preferable to a graduate assistant, not yet
25, only recently a bachelors degree,
teaching a required course. As for course
content, the material is that of one of the
oldest professions in the world, and a very
honorable one at that. In most cases the
credit averages about 10% of that used
toward the bachelors degree. The average
graduate spends about that much time in a
military environment. Thus, it would seem
appropriate that he spend an equivalent
amount of time preparing for it.

The essence of these comments is best
summarized by the following thoughts of an
ROTC instructor at Rutgers:

"Only the nave seriously argue that
armies can be eliminated from this unsettled
world. But who would not wish it so? In the
unhappy interim, while free nations secure
themselves with the materials of war, it is of
utmost importance that their armies be led
by just and compassionate men - men who
understand that as leaders they are also
public servants who have a profound
responsibility to minister to the welfare of
those they command, to serve with fidelity,
integrity and the wisdom to see beyond
their actions to the effects their actions
wreak.

"This kind of leadership must come from
the University, where the fundamental
humanism undergirding the very concepts of
a liberal education thrive and infect those
who come to learn. It can come from
nowhere else because there is nowhere else.

The Army has only a minor influence on
the university. The influence of the
university on the Army is very great, and its
importance i urgent. Among the contributions
of the universities to the professions,
few are more important than this."