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.