Inside Higher Ed: "The Defense Department vs. Free Speech on Campus"

"The Defense Department vs. Free Speech on Campus" by John K. Wilson.

The author of Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies writes that the military is about to "invade" American colleges. Sparked by the proposed regulations to implement the October 2004 changes in the Solomon Amendment, Wilson objects to the provisions in the ROTC Vitalization Act of 1964 about faculty appointments and course credit for ROTC, without making it clear that these provisions are due to the 1964 law. He also claims that language in the regulations about military recruiters experiencing "an inferior or unsafe recruiting climate" would "ban all protests against military recruiters", even though the oral arguments before the Supreme Court indicated that protests are permitted. He also states that "there is no college that has actually banned the military from renting space on campus like any other group and holding ROTC training sessions". Such a plan could be tested most easily by a non-governmental query because the Pentagon doing so "would trigger the Solomon Amendment" according to Fred Cook, who has served on the Defense Business Board.

Commentary:

I have been very closely involved with both sides of this debate for a long
time now, and have a somewhat unique perspective straddling both the world of
the military and that of higher education.

It should be noted that Mr Wilson's article is, in some ways, misleading.
First, in the context of objecting the Solomon Amendment, he harbors specific
objections to the requirement for faculty appointments for ROTC instructors and
professors, as well as the provision of course credit for ROTC courses. What he
fails to mention is that these are all requirements of the 1964 ROTC
Vitalization Act, and are nowhere mentioned in the Solomon Amendment. A prime
example of a modern ROTC program is that of Princeton University, which neither
offers credit for its ROTC courses, nor grants ROTC instructors faculty
appointments as Professor &c.

Second, he claims that language in the regulations about military recruiters
experiencing "an inferior or unsafe recruiting climate" would "ban all protests
against military recruiters", even though in the oral arguments before the
Supreme Court it was explicitly stated that such protests would and must be
permitted. Rather this clause refers to the practice of some schools, such as
Harvard and Columbia, placing recruiters in basement rooms or other buildings
away from the main activities of planned career fairs or recruiting sessions.
As both a former recruiter and a graduate of these schools I have observed
such treatment myself.

Personally, instead of strong-arming ROTC's presence via Solomon, I would
much rather see schools welcome ROTC back on to campus someday, even to include
a reformulation of the program to ensure that it meets the stringent academic
standards of those Ivy League schools that presently ban it. (I found some of my
ROTC courses to be just as academically challenging as my undergraduate college
courses, so this should not be difficult).

But many schools seem entirely unwilling to even entertain the idea, and
merely wish to shun ROTC and the military without consideration. What does that
say about Academic freedom and openness and their dedication to a diverse
learning environment? I believe that both the military and higher education have
much to gain and learn from each other. Rather than tearing them down, why not
offer or invite some constructive suggestions?

I might suggest some compromise on the matter. For example, just as the
university has certain standards and responsibility for oversight of its
educational programs, so does the military have standards and responsibility for
oversight of the education of its officers. In light of this, I would offer the
suggestion that a partnership program be established, in which oversight for
credit-granting coursework in military studies be offered by the university and
faculty, while the requirements for officer training and education would be
overseen by the military cadre. In the spirit of said partnership, faculty
members responsible for the credit-granting military studies program might take
into account the desires and needs of the military and its future officers in
designing their curriculum. Likewise, in the course of the officer training and
education program, should the military cadre wish credits to be granted for
their half of the program they might be provided with opportunity for review and
possible approval.

I agree that it is inappropriate for the government to force institutions to
appoint persons to faculty rank and grant course credit with no oversight or
approval by the institution. But I also know that many of these institutions
have been closed to any suggestion of cooperation whatsoever. Were they to
actually appear open to the idea of ROTC and willing to discuss and negotiate
their issues of contention, I think one might find more support from the
military than one might expect.

ABC News Story

Video: "Disparity of ROTC programs raises concern that cadets aren't diverse enough: Virginia has 11 ROTC programs while New York City only has 2".

At a time when diversity could be more important than ever to the U.S.
military, many campus recruiters for the Army's ROTC program are narrowing the field of potential officers.
Roman Rushtlion speaks Russian and English. Now he's learning Arabic. "The kind of fight that we're fighting, we have to be very sensitive to other people's cultures," Rushtlion said.
He's a fairly typical cadet at St. John's University's ROTC program, one of only two remaining ROTC programs in New York City.It's much the same at Fordham University in Manhattan, where recruits use Central Park for a training ground.
Over the past two decades, the Army has slashed nearly a quarter of its ROTC programs. The deepest cuts have come at inner city schools, as the Army focuses more of its recruitment efforts on the rural South. Cities like Chicago and Miami have only one ROTC program, and Detroit, with its large Muslim population, has
none.
Some worry the result is a less diverse officer corps, at a time the Army is facing more diverse challenges at home and abroad. "You lose valuable assets of people who are used to interacting with multicultural people and are used to participating in customs," said St. John's ROTC Cadet Raquel Acosta. Acosta speaks English and Spanish and some Arabic.
"You lose quite a bit when the military does not place the necessary emphasis it should on urban centers because out of those urban centers come young people who have multicultural backgrounds. They speak multiple languages," said Retired Gen. Jack Deane, an ABC News consultant.The Army says it sees the importance of trying to maintain an ethnic and regional balance, but it's taking a long view.
"We do need to be concerned about our approach because it has to be balanced this might be the right thing to do for this particular conflict. The question is, what will it look like five years from now," said U.S. Army Cadet Commander Maj. Gen. W. Montague Winfield.ROTC gets more bang for the buck in rural America, where a strong military tradition drives students into the program. While New York City has just two programs, the state of Virginia, with a slightly smaller population, has 11.
The program at James Madison University is more typical and very successful. The goal is to graduate 25 cadets a year, this year they will graduate 26. That gives the Army a good return on its investment.
That's important at a time when the ROTC is trying to do more with less. The Army wants ROTC to churn out 4,500 new officers this year, 600 more than last year."We're not making that mission right now because we can't produce an officer overnight," Winfield said.The Pentagon acknowledges that a new kind of warfare requires a new kind of officer. But the Army is still struggling to find enough of them.