University of Virginia Library

ROTC-The Law

In an informal poll of the College Faculty
conducted last year, 65 per cent of the
respondents indicated that they opposed the
extension of credit for courses given by the
ROTC departments at the University. Yet
when the issue finally comes to a vote, a
number of those who responded against credit
for ROTC may vote against a motion to
rescind it.

The reason is a law, which the pro-ROTC
forces are quick to point to, which specifies
conditions which must be met if there is to be
any ROTC at all. These conditions are that
credit be given to ROTC courses and that the
heads of the Military Science Departments be
accorded professorial status. So the question
of ROTC must be considered in two stages -
whether the courses are worthy of credit, and
if they are not, whether we wish to jeopardize
the future of any ROTC courses at all by
taking credit away.

The question of credit for ROTC courses
should not revolve around whether these
courses are rigorous or not. One could set up a
course in nursery rhymes, and by dint of
stringent testing and massive memorization
content, fail half the students who took it.
What should be at issue is whether the content
of the courses reach the College's academic
standard in terms of academic freedom and
diversity of opinion allowed. It is here that
ROTC courses fall short. They present the
government viewpoint through teachers paid
by the government to present the material
written by the government. The role of the
United States in world affairs, for example, is
not given as a critical evaluation. It is simply
given, to be memorized and given back on
tests. No other courses in the University
operate on such a basis. Marxist courses are
presented along with refutations; courses on
the United States in History or Foreign
Affairs Departments do so as well. But ROTC
does not. As the Student Council Curriculum
Evaluation Committee pointed out, it's as if
General Electric offered courses to prospective
employees which oriented them in the
thinking of General Electric - with credit
from the University.

Few would disagree that the University
would be prostituting its standards if it
allowed General Electric to run the Electrical
Engineering Department. In much the same
way, the University is prostituting itself by
allowing the Government to dictate the terms
under which Military Science will be taught at
the University. The Government will not
allow the program to be established on a
non-credit basis. It insists that established
hiring standards of faculty be disregarded. The
Government holds out its program, which
gives financial aid to students and allows them
to take advantage of one of the draft
alternatives as an enticement to let the
standards go.

Normally, a department secures an additional
faculty member by actively recruiting
potential candidates, from which it makes a
final choice. The department submits its
recommendation to the Dean of the faculty of
its school who must also approve their choice.
The final decision must come from the
Provost, who determines the salary and status
of the faculty member. Potential ROTC
faculty members are simply recommended
directly to the President of the University
through governmental agencies. The President
can reject such a recommendation but has no
control over salary, which is paid by the
government. In the case of the commanding
officer of a unit, the University must grant
him the status of full professor, regardless of
normal University standards.

The College Faculty, then, is confronted
with this challenge. Is it going to join its
colleagues in all the other schools at the
University in denying credit to ROTC, or is it
going to continue to allow the government to
dictate policy in academic affairs?