University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

ROTC: Military, Historical Value

I would like to analyze what it is
that makes the Reserve Officers
Training Corps highly important in
the college curriculum. We must
make two major considerations - a
military consideration and a historical
consideration - involving various
subtopics.

Since this is a course for
prospective military officers, then
perhaps we should first take the
military consideration into account.
This position was succinctly stated
by General William Westmoreland
in his letter to Colonel Dart, read to
the corps two weeks ago. As he
stated, the Reserve Officer Training
Corps produces many times the
number of officers than the Officers
Candidate Schools and the
Service academies combined. This
final calculation leads to the indisputable
fact that the Reserve
Officers Training Corps is a powerful
contributor to a powerful
political and military tool in international
relations. The issue requires
no further debate on this
point.

Recently the Reserve Officer
Training Corps has come under
considerable condemnation by various
members of the college communities.
However, the position taken
by these gentlemen is not historically
valid. It may seem rather
superficial to point out that a
college community truly exists, but
in reality it is not, because all those
who criticize ROTC use this fact of
existence as their departure point in
their argument. They state that the
ROTC interferes in the domestic
life of the "academic community."
You've heard this term before. The
idea that a "college community"
exists is true, but the theory that an
"academic community" exists here
in America is false. It is not
historically valid. The two terms
imply two separate things. The
term "academic community" implies
a gathering or group of
scholars who seclude themselves
from other community considerations
to pursue a life of study. Also
it implies an academic institution
independent financially and politically
from the community. This is
true in Europe where the aristocratic,
feudal, and clerical foundations
provided a base for academic
institutions to thrive independent
of the community support, politically
or financially.

Now let's look at the United
States. America never had such a
hierarchy as had been developed in
Europe. Therefore, when we consider
this fact, upon whom is the
American college community (note
I use that term and not academic
community) dependent for its
money and support? The business
community. Therefore there never
existed such an exalted creature as
the "academic community." American
colleges are part of the overall
community. A good example of
this is the creation of the office of
College President to act as a
go-between in the affairs of the
college and the state.

American colleges produce
leaders for all fields of service in the
state - scientific, governmental,
and military. Therefore there has
never been an "academic community"
and therefore there can never
be such an organ into which the
ROTC may intrude. The ROTC
belongs on the college campus.
College campuses are not politically
neutral because they are part of the
community. ROTC is a political
and military force which belongs
here.

The last consideration deals with
the ROTC contribution to the
concept of the citizen soldier. It is
vitally important that this concept
remain intact in the political
structure. The concept of the
citizen soldier suggests an army
composed of men who serve for
only short periods in the Armed
Services and then return to civilian
life. This is exactly what the ROTC
does. It is true that many ROTC
graduates become career officers,
but is more true that a large
majority serve a short term of duty
and return to civilian life.

So, what may we conclude? We
can see that the ROTC is important
to the Army for a large amount of
its officers. It is also true that most
of these officers serve only short
tours of duty and then return to
civilian life. The Army therefore
fulfills the concept of the citizen
soldier. Far more important, I
conclude that the Army, as a
powerful political force, belongs on
the college campuses which here in
America have been and continue to
be powerful political forces in
themselves.

Mr. Gardner's argument in October
20th's Cavalier Daily, that the
neutrality-detachment theory proffered
by Mr. Claude and others
ignores the significant political
involvement of the University,
appears well-taken, if too riddled
with the hackneyed jargon of the
New Left. Classified defense research,
the JAG school, and the
Naval Research Laboratory underline
the seeming indifference of the
University policy-makers to criticism
of such political alliances and
to the tradition of Lerenfrelheit
upon which Mr. Claude bases only
one-half of his argument.

Yet Mr. Gardner's remarks,
though certainly not lacking in
invective, fail to mention a more
blatant instance of objectionable
behavior by the University - one
which has rather surprisingly been
ignored by student organizations.
This year, Courtenay House, a
former graduate dormitory and a
part of the Alderman Road Dormitory
complex adjacent to Scott
Stadium, has been leased to the
Department of Defense. In this
dormitory are housed military JAG
officers (though it seems that some
suites remain vacant). At the same
time, a number of male graduate
students have been forced to live in
the basements of First-Year dorms,
and numerous women students
have had to find housing outside
the University grounds. (Unfortunately,
several of these graduate
students are foreign students who
are understandably hesitant to
become involved in "political"
matters which might affect their
alien status in this country.)

Those who have in the past
rationalized away ROTC, the JAG
school, and other instances of the
University's political involvement
must now face a commitment
which presents a far greater infringement
upon student life.
Secret contracts and fenced-off
"observatories" are at least neatly
tucked away from everyday view;
yet the conversion of student
housing into a military barracks
indicates an arrogant disdain for
public opinion in a time when such
overt alliances are, to say the least,
unfashionable. Above all else, this
situation manifests a marked absence
of propriety and good sense.
Is President Shannon, when he
holds a candle and expresses his
approval of the peace march, being
duplicitous, or is he demonstrating
extraordinary inefficacy? Who
made this decision and why? Is the
student body not entitled to know?