University of Virginia Library

At risk of becoming frightfully
redundant, I want to come to the
defense of (Uh-oh, a fascist) ROTC.
First, let me identify myself - fraty
man, biology major, bead and
bell-bottom wearer, participant in
last fall's Moratorium activities and
finally, to explain my particular
bias, as an Air Force ROTC cadet. I
am anti-Vietnam, pro-rapid withdrawal,
a "liberal-when-necessary"
moderate.

I defend ROTC against those
who attack it on its academic merit
or lack thereof. At this school the
attack appears to me to be
three-pronged: qualification of instructors,
quality of course material,
and moral legitimacy of the
program especially for credit. Also,
I want to make it clear that I am
defending ROTC at U.Va. and
nowhere else - relative to this
schools' academics and faculty; I
believe my defense is sound.

To defend the first point: show
me that most professors, especially
in the sciences, are more interested
in teaching than being in their own
labs or writing research articles;
show me a lab instructor trained to
teach, not just hired to earn h-s way
through grad school.

An officer assigned to a ROTC
detachment is trained to teach the
material he will present; his sole
concern is in teaching students
about the military. And believe me,
there is room for debate in a ROTC
class. I believe ROTC officer/instructors
are at least as qualified as
any other teacher here to teach his
subject.

Secondly, indictment of ROTC
courses content as rationale for
elimination is highly unfair in light
of the existence of the many "guts"
offered in the undergraduate
schools. Once again, show me that
ROTC courses alone are devoid of
useful subject matter, that it is the
biggest gut. As Mr. Heyworth in his
27 April letter stated, Naval ROTC
courses do demand a bit more than
knowing where the water is.

Likewise, Air Force courses
touch on Air Force history, elementary
rocketry and ballistics, leadership
and management. How useless
are these courses compared to some
of the guts with which we all
our schedules?

My third defense must be,
granted, the most emotional and
arbitrary of the three: morality
cannot be objectified. I believe that
a military is necessary to any
nation's welfare. (However, I disagree
heartily with the way in
which ours is being used and with
the prostitution of its proper role as
a tool of diplomacy).

Therefore, a study of the military
is legitimate - "I climbed the
mountain because it was there" -
and at least some credit should be
awarded to students open-minded
enough to accept the reality of the
military as it ideally should be. And
that is ROTC - the military, not
the MIC, not the Military/Political
Complex - a study of the ideal
U.S. military force.