The Cavalier daily :: Tuesday, May 5, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

When the College Faculty gets
around to voting on the proposal of
the Selden Committee to restore six
hours of degree credit to ROTC, it
will be deciding a lot more than the
number of hours a ROTC student
can use for his diploma. In a very
real sense, the assembled scholars
will be telling liberal and radical
students whether or not the University
is really serious about providing
effective, non-violent channels of
dissent.

When the present term began in
September, the many students who
felt that ROTC had no place at a
university such as ours faced a
decision. They could take militant
action in support of the goals —
demonstrations, harassment of
ROTC, perhaps violence. Or they
could work towards the limited
goal of removing credit for ROTC,
using the "legitimate" channels
provided in the College's curriculum
evaluation.

They chose the latter. They
worked through the Student Council
curriculum evaluation, through
the student news media, through
testimony before the curriculum
committee, and through out-and-out
lobbying in behalf of their
cause. Lo and behold, it worked.
The faculty voted to remove degree
credit from ROTC. The system had
come through. It seemed too good
to be true.

Of course, it was. The system's
proprietors — President Shannon,
the state legislature, etc. — were not
used to seeing unfavorable results,
but they recovered quickly and
counter-attacked. The word went
out. The faculty's decision would
have to be changed.

Dean David Shannon got the
word. He appointed a committee so
loaded in favor of ROTC that it
might have been laughable had it
not been tragic at the same time.
There were going to be no students
on this committee to mess up the
works. In fact, there were going to
be no anti-ROTC people, students
or faculty, to mess up the works.

The committee set about its
work, finding bits and pieces of
evidence they could use to support
their foregone conclusion. "Do you
want degree credit?" they asked the
services. "Yes, we do," the brass
answered. "Good," said the committee.
"Would you please tell us
you'll leave if you don't get it?"
"We can't commit ourselves like
that," the brass replied, "But we
might leave." The committee had
to make do with the commitments
and evidence it could get.

So they presented their report, a
document so incompetently argued
they would have been horrified to
receive it from one of their
students. Then the debate began. It
was duly noted that the Appropriations
Committee of the House of
Delegates would look favorably on
VPI-if-ROTC were not restored to
accredited graces. The militant
militants made their pitch for death
in the curriculum.

The voice of the students was
curiously represented in this debate.
One of the faculty hawks got
up and said that the Selden report
must be passed because the students
wanted ROTC. Dean Shannon,
of course, refused to recognize
anyone who might have been in a
better position to articulate the
student viewpoint — i.e., a student.

Then came the vote on Mr.
McClellan's substitute resolution,
which would have killed the Selden
resolution. It failed by two votes; at
least thirteen ROTC instructors
case their ballots in favor of credit.
(The Committee made much of the
"autonomy" of the ROTC instructors.
Yet, while some of them have
privately expressed their opinion
that ROTC should have no degree
credit, none of them voted that
way.) A motion to adjourn postponed
consideration of the Selden
resolution for a couple of weeks.

When that vote occurs, the
students will be watching. They will
want to see whether the members
of the College Faculty, half of
whom didn't even bother to show
up Tuesday, will stand up for their
own autonomy and the integrity of
the systemic channels in which
students can participate. If they do
not, they will have only themselves
to blame for the damage to the
University which will occur if
students are forced to seek other
channels.