University of Virginia Library

No Degree

Today the College faculty must decide
whether it will take positive action in its own
interests or whether it will bend to the
demands of forces outside the University. All
of the arguments for and against ROTC have
reached most of the faculty by now. We do
not believe that the findings of the Seldon
Committee are surprising, nor do we believe
that they should influence the faculty's
original decision to remove degree credit for
ROTC courses for the class entering in
September 1971.

Who could have expected either ROTC
representatives in the Department of Defense
or on the Grounds to tell the members of the
Seldon Committee that they would remain at
the University if degree credit were removed,
whether they would nor not? Certainly people
running the ROTC program do not want to
see degree credit taken away. They also know
that most faculties at the universities would
like to see the program remain in some form.
By implying that the continuation of the
ROTC program would be an impossibility
without degree credit or some other academic
contingency, the Pentagon can hope to
dissuade university faculties from taking long
overdue reform measures.

The Seldon's Committee's Report just does
not present any startling revelations. It is
another disparate attempt at compromise by
men that have strong feelings for the ROTC
program and who believe that almost any
more of substance will cause the eventual
demise of the program at the University. It is
a report which reacts only rather than
charting its own path for the University's
interests.

Of all the students now serving on faculty
committees only two have failed to sign a
letter indicating displeasure with the Seldon
Committee's Report and calling for the
abolishment of degree credit under the
original resolution. The two students who
would not sign are now enrolled in the ROTC
program. The students who did call for the
abolishment of degree credit represent a wide
spectrum of political views, but found basic
agreement on this issue, and, we believe, are
fairly representative of the feelings of the
majority of students now on the Grounds.

As we said yesterday, there is no doubt
that the senseless war in Vietnam is at the
base of the whole ROTC controversy.
Advocates of ROTC will no doubt charge that
to abolish degree credit for the courses would
be to fall to the whims and caprices of the
times. This is not the case. Even though the
war seems not to have taught President Nixon
many lessons, there are some to be had.
Militarism especially from forces outside the
University has no place in the liberal arts
degree. War should not be used to coerce
students into a stale program of scant
academic worth.

It is important to remember that by
abolishing degree credit, the faculty is not
abolishing all credit. A student still would
receive academic credit for his work in ROTC,
and although it would not count towards his
liberal arts degree, it would affect his grade
point average. Today the faculty is not voting
to abolish or keep ROTC, as the Seldon
Committee would lead one to believe: The
faculty is voting whether to give degree credit
and thereby diluting the liberal arts degree
with courses dictated by an outside force, or
merely give ROTC courses academic credit.
Degree credit for ROTC should be abolished.