University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

SDS Member Speaks Out Against ROTC Program

If the purpose of the University
is to be a glorified trade school
turning out an ever larger number
of ever more qualified experts to
run an ever more complex (and
meaningless) society, then the presence
of ROTC on these grounds is
justifiable insofar as it trains its
members to obey orders; to "know
their place" in a hierarchical organization;
to accept basic moral premises,
including those of society
(such as MacArthur's "Duty! Honor!
Country!" - perhaps reminiscent
of "Volk! Reich! Fuhrer!"?) without
question ("There's a right way
and there's an Army way - do it
the Army way and keep your nose
clean" as a sergeant told me when I
was a cadet), as well as teaching
them the techniques of violence
necessary to protect that society
from external aggression (a la Vietnam)
and internal disruption (a la
Chicago). Incidentally, the last
point is not made tongue-in-cheek;
American military and economics
hegemony would be impossible in a
world of nationalistically oriented
socialist states (such as that of Ho
Chi Minh in Vietnam); machine
politics and immense individual fortunes
would be impossible in a
society based upon true participatory
democracy and co-operative
(versus competitive) living. But, if
the purpose of the University is to
enlarge and develop the individual
qua individual, autonomous, creative,
independent, and not as an
anonymous cog in a vast machine
(whether at machine be Military,
Bureaucracy - including Education,
or Corporate Business) then
ROTC is a cancer within the
University insofar as it imposes an
ideological, straight jacketed upon its
members. Naval ROTC cadets were
told this fall that they were not
allowed to have "moral qualms"
which might hinder them in the
prosecution of their orders; they
were also forbidden to engage in
political, especially anti-war and
leftist activity (NROTC Commander,
please comment!).

I will be the first to admit that
one of the most effective means of
changing the military is from within;
as Generals Gavin and Shoup are
trying to do; but I must also submit
that noncommissioned personnel,
lower level officers, and cadets have
little opportunity to express fundamental
grievances and still less to
implement meaningful changes.
Certainly my attack is not directed
towards the members of ROTC,
some of whom have a far deeper
social commitment than most students
here; it is directed towards
the institution itself (I must qualify
this: having talked to many servicemen,
including veterans of Nam, it
seems that OCS graduates are far
superior to ROTC graduates; perhaps
our Military Science departments
are more incompetent than
dangerous!) ROTC does not produce
better educated citizen-soldiers,
it simply produces worse
citizens who have been inculcated
with the ethic of obeying rather
than questioning: education is not a
matter of accumulating facts - any
computer can do that better than a
human being; it is a matter of
opening one's mind, sharpening
one's perceptions, broadening one's
"spirit." ROTC is both a (though
not the only, or even the most
important) cause and a symbol of
the anti-intellectual atmosphere at
U. Va. - and as such it should be
removed; students could have the
option of taking it off grounds
without University credit. Also, I
would be delighted to have several
ROTC instructors, particularly
from the Navy, reply publicly to
this letter: my goal is not so much
to persuade as to awaken.

Lippman Column

Walter Lippmann has presented
a doleful case for Richard Nixon in
his column dated October 6. Too
many people this year find it
convincing.

He states that only the
Republicans have the party unity to
govern successfully. What meaning
does this have when one considers
that Congress will be divided, that
volatile pockets of discontent will
await any new President? Is
electoral opportunism alone going
to hold together the Thurmond and
Lindsay wings?

Lippmann supports Nixon
because he is more closely
identified than Humphrey with the
conservative trend in the U.S.,
implying that riding the tide of
public sentiment is the key to
responsive public policy. In his
deference to so-called conservative
values, Lippmann has failed to see
that discipline, authority, and
self-reliance are the catchwords of
reaction unless they are amplified
respectively by the words
conscience, legitimacy, and
freedom from exploitation. Can
Lippmann legitimately expect the
conservative mind to turn from
perennial negativism to positive
innovation?

Lippmann supports Nixon
because he can repress violence
more comfortably than Humphrey,
if that becomes necessary. Is
repression our answer to the
development of social justice? He
states that Vietnam is not
susceptible to innovative solutions
so it doesn't matter who's in the
White House. But how about the
threat of nuclear war, the demands
of the Third World, the agenda for
East-West relations?

Lippmann can't seem to say
anything positive about Nixon's
talents. He implies that we can wait
four years for the Democrats to
recoup. Like many others he is
tired, more willing to acquiesce in
the safe emptiness of Nixon than to
respond to the challenging
commitments of Humphrey.