University of Virginia Library

ROTC 'Merits No Credit'

It is the considered opinion of
the ROTC Affairs and Curriculum
Evaluation Committee that the
granting of academic credit for
courses offered in the Departments
of Air, Naval, and Military Science
is a policy in direct opposition to
the purposes and principles of the
University of Virginia and that the
courses offered are of insufficient
academic merit to warrant further
credit. In justifying this contention
we will examine the nature and
content of ROTC courses and
provide counter-arguments to the
reasons offered in support of the
programs by the Faculty Committee
on Curriculum Reform.

There are essentially two types
of ROTC courses offered. The first,
or academically oriented, includes
such areas as foreign affairs, comparative
government, and national
security policy. These courses
would, undoubtedly, be better
taught by other University departments,
where the tradition of free
and diverse debate is encouraged.
The opposite is true in courses
taught under the ROTC programs,
where the content is explicitly
directed by the directives found in
the Department of Defense manuals.
The ROTC departments, in
using only these manuals, present a
most based and simplistic analysis
of world politics which is singularly
slanted so as to always be anti-Communist.
We question whether
other University professors would
find these manuals of sufficient
academic merit as to warrant use in
their courses. Such simplistic doctrinaire
concepts as the "nine
principles of war" (See Army
manual for instructors of MS I) are
examples of typical course material.

The second type of ROTC
course may be called the professionally
oriented. Examples of this
type are: a six credit course offered
by Air Science entitled "The
Professional Officer;" an eight credit
course offered by the Army
entitled "Leadership and Management,"
in which such topics as the
mission and functions of the
branches of the Army, small-unit
tactics, planning and strategic
operations, and counter-insurgency
actions with emphasis on current
military doctrines are considered;
and a six credit course offered by
the Navy entitled "Naval Weapons
Systems."

The Faculty Curriculum Committee
has stated that these professionally-oriented
courses are basically
no different than those professional
courses offered by the
Schools of Commerce, Engineering,
or Architecture. After thorough
consideration of this point, we find
it most difficult to arrive at a
similar conclusion.

At the outset, professional
courses offered in other schools are
done so completely at the discretion
of that school. It selects a
professor by its own standards and
allows him the liberty of establishing
the course content and
nature of instruction. On the other
hand, the Department of Defense
manuals for instructors, not only
prescribe the course content in
detail, but explicitly state the
manner in which the material is to
be presented and under what
circumstances. This is indeed a
substantial departure from the
practices used in the other professional
schools of the University.

Secondly, the professional
courses offered in other schools are
not taught by representatives of
one's future employer. If, for
example, a student takes a course in
management offered by the Commerce
School, he is in no way
obligated to work, after graduation,
for any particular business enterprise.
Rather, he has a maximum
freedom of choice - a luxury
which ROTC is unable to offer.

No parallel between ROTC and
other professional courses exists.
Were the General Electric Company
to enter into a contract with the
University whereby its representatives
taught specified courses for
which credit was given, wherein
students were paid for their time
and efforts, and whereupon graduation
they were obligated to
receive employment with GE as
junior executives, we would find
the situation totally analogous. Yet,
this is most assuredly not the case,
for it is as antithetical to the basic
character of a university as is the
continuance of credit for ROTC
programs.

It is apparently a recurrent fear
among faculty to consider or
examine the content of the courses
taught under the ROTC programs.
This fear is based on a justifiable
concern for the privileges of
academic freedom. However, the
reluctance to consider the content
of ROTC courses is based on a
misconception of the situation. The
content and scope of ROTC courses
is determined by an outside authority
- the Department of Defense.
Under normal circumstances, the
College faculty would consider the
scope and broad content of a
course before it was placed in the
catalogue and offered for credit.
Once approved, the instructor obviously
has the freedom to determine
the nature of the course -
what and how he teaches. In the
case of ROTC, no such preliminary
control exists - the University is
told what will be taught. Under
these conditions, is it not reasonable
to expect the faculty to
inquire as to the nature of the
course?

No threat to academic freedom
is presented. Ordinary courses offered
in the College, or even in the
professional schools, differ significantly
in origin from ROTC
courses. This basic difference acts
as a firm and sufficient safeguard
against the threat of intrusion into
the content of all courses. No
dangerous precedent would be
established if ROTC course content
were examined, rather the dual
standard now in use would cease to
function. In this matter, we believe
that the faculty is magnifying a
threat substantially beyond its
actual proportion.

The caliber of instruction provided
by the ROTC professors is a
difficult matter to accurately determine.
Student opinion is diverse
and accordingly no definitive conclusion
can be fairly made. However,
two points deserve mention in
this regard. First, is it not possible
that much favorable opinion
offered by students in ROTC
programs regarding their instructors
is a result of their desire to aid in
the continuation of credit for the
courses, rather than an objective
appraisal of the caliber of instruction?
Second, would departments
such as History, Government and
Foreign Affairs, or English grant
assistant professorial rank to individuals
with only masters or bachelors
degrees, and little teaching
experience? We think not.

Finally, it has been stated that if
academic credit is withdrawn,
ROTC units will, by virtue of their
contracts, be forced to leave the
University by the Department of
Defense. This is a true statement.
However, is it reasonable to require
that the University prostitute its
standards in order to enter into
contractual obligations with the
Department of Defense? Should it
not be incumbent upon the Department
of Defense to meet the
normal standards of the University
if it is desirous of offering its
programs to University of Virginia
students? We think that it is quite
obvious that the University had
abdicated its responsibilities in this
area and must reaffirm and re-establish
its inherent obligation to
establish and maintain standards of
academic excellence befitting the
University and in accord with the
principles and purposes for which it
was established by Thomas Jefferson.

It is our earnest conviction that
under no circumstances should
academic credit be granted for
courses offered by the Departments
of Air, Naval, or Military Science
and we strongly urge you to take
any and all necessary steps to
immediately effect this goal.