There are several points which
you raised about ROTC in your
Monday editorial which I strongly
question as to their validity.
You asked 'why shouldn't
ROTC units change to accommodate
the University and its desires.'
I would like to point out that in the
past few years, the Navy ROTC
program here has dropped several
of its officer-taught courses and
substituted them with related
courses in the College and Engineering
School. Is this not a positive
effort to accommodate the University
and its desires?
The few courses still taught by
the staff in Maury Hall, "Navigation"
for instance, could easily be
appreciated by any student in the
University as a viable, practical
academic endeavor.
You speculated that if given the
choice, most students would not
choose to sign up for ROTC.
Regardless of that thought, the fact
remains that many students, especially
under the present lottery,
will inevitably be subjected to
military service. To withdraw one's
opportunity to, as you said, "take
the easiest option" regarding required
service in the Armed Forces,
is to do a great disservice to the
students here at Virginia.
You exhort the University's
magnanimity in providing the Navy,
for many years, with large numbers
of qualified officers. It is well and
fair that the University, does, especially
under the present arrangement.
You did admit an awareness
of the curtailment "of a sizeable
amount of scholarship money" in
the event of the University's losing
one or all of the ROTC programs.
This loss of scholarship money
would not be all. Scholarships are
granted under the Regular Naval
ROTC Program on the basis of a
nationwide scholastic aptitude test
and consequent interviews. From
the large number of applicants for
the program, only a minute portion
are selected for their personal and
scholastic qualities. You cannot
deny that this tra-University
selection process is beneficial to the
quality of students at this University
or any University in the
country supporting ROTC programs.
You suggest that 'the University,
through the faculty, tell the Pentagon
that this nation's increasing
militarism is alarming.' This approach
for righting the so-called
insecurity is, indeed, illogical. The
Military per , has little or no
contact with the citizens of this
nation except by those draft laws
passed by the civilian administrators
in our government. By our
Constitution, the President is designated
Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces and he is thereby
responsible for any imposition of
the Military on the citizens of our
country. As unpopular among the
upper echelons of the Armed
Forces as it is true, the fact remains
that the Military is an instrument of
those civilians administering our
domestic and foreign policy. Therefore
to attack the Military in the
Pentagon for the alleged 'militarization'
of our country is as illogical as
trying to reform 'professionalism'
in athletics by harassing the players
themselves.
I do not think, Sir, judging from
your editorial, that you are competent
to advise the faculty on their
decision regarding ROTC at Virginia.
Gordon Heyworth
College 2
