Editorials
The case for
Military tra
ning has its place
Editor’s note: Today’s editorial page has been
given to representatives of both sides in the debate
to abolish credit for ROTC. The first column is writ
ten by Robb Miller Emerald Business Manager and
senior ROTC cadet.
The question of whether ROTC will remain on the
University of Oregon campus with academic credit is
once again facing our faculty, as has periodically been
the case since 1922 when the Oregon Emerald openly
attacked the “militaristic and silly” ROTC program.
ROTC credit has been the subject of numerous curricu
lum committee investigations, administrative debates,
student protests, and editorial commentaries. The argu
ments are not new. They revolve around one central is
sue, “Is ROTC worth it? Does military training really
deserve a place within a liberal arts community?” The
author believes it does.
I must begin my argument with the basic premise
that a scholar in liberal arts is a student of humanity,
eager and willing to examine every aspects of human
experience, and that force is an unfortunate but real
aspect of that experience. Therefore, the study of mili
tary science is an important ingredient of a liberal edu
cation.
Recent criticism of ROTC has undoubtedly been
catalyzed by the Vietnam war and the constant attacks
upon the military-industrial complex; attacks which are
partially justifiable. But our concern is not the integrity
of the entire military strata, for it, as every institution,
exists in an imperfect state, constantly in need of im
provement and innovation. Rather, the armed forces
must be looked upon as a protective necessity; protect
ing the freedom that allows one to write such articles
as this. As the provider of national security we must
ask ourselves what type of personnel should administer
its functions. Do we want stereotyped, uneducated, mili
tary amateurs? No. Qualified college graduates who are
aware of social and political problems and change are
the brand of officers needed. So is it not more beneficial
to have officers with a university background rather
than drawing them from Officer Candidate School, whose
ranks originate from enlisted men; some with and some
without the benefits of civilian higher education? If
such an assumption is correct there must certainly exist
a program which is attractive to the college male; a
program in which academic credit as well as education is
included.
Criticism of accredited ROTC on campus has involved
curriculum, instructors, and actual work load. By exam
ining each of these arguments perhaps we can better
understand the conflict at Oregon.
ROTC course substance includes classes in military
history, weapons, tactics, leadership, management, lo
gistics, military law, and military bearing; classes which
are professional and technical in character and which
are no less cultural than many other professional train
ing programs on campus. Military literature and text
books are employed in ROTC instruction simply because
they are the most readily available sources of informa
tion concerning the armed forces. As math texts written
by mathematicians are employed by the math depart
ment, so are military manuals written by militarists
used in ROTC. If other applicable texts were available
they would be used without hesitation.
There has also been criticism concerning the faculty;
the officers who instruct ROTC classes. As cited by the
University curriculum committee’s report on the ROTC,
each officer has received a bachelor’s or master’s degree
at some standard civilian institution of higher education.
They have also received an extensive degree of training
through service schools and actual field experience. Per
haps they do not have all the conventional credentials
that automatically label one as “qualified,” but in a
liberal institution administrative flexibility would seem
to be an asset rather than a detriment and absolute ad
ministrative uniformity an absurdity.
A further argument against ROTC lies in the relative
value of its credit hour committment when weighted
against the same number of hours spent on other, more
“beneficial” courses. At Oregon an army ROTC student
must take a total of twenty-four hours of military sci
ence to receive a commission upon graduation. AFROTC
requirements are the same. Thus, the work load amounts
to approximately one-seventh of their undergraduate ed
ucation. When one considers that no one is required
to take ROTC and that one voluntarily enrolls with the
intention of earning a commission in the army or air
force, the time and energy spent in achieving those ends
is minimal, leaving the student ample time to broaden
his liberal education and to expand in numerous aca
demic areas.
Perhaps even more important than any of the preceed
ing arguments for the retention of ROTC as an accredit
ed academic alternative lies in the conclusion of Dr.
Herman B. Wells, President of Indiana University, in his
response to the university community:
“If in this time of war hysteria we should be per
suaded to cancel out the ROTC program for political
reasons, we would in effect be yielding to precisely the
same kind of pressures which from time to time have
demanded that we cease teaching anything about Karl
Marx, Russian history, and Slavic languages and litera
ture. There is little practical difference to the univer
sity whether those demands come from inside or outside
the university community. Secondly, while it is under
standable that many people who bear the terrible brunt
of war should be opposed to war, our national involve
ment in Vietnam is nonetheless a fact, as is the draft.
The likelihood that many of your fellow students will be
called upon for military service still remains unfortunate
ly strong. In our zeal to end the war and promote peace,
consider the effect of your attack upon ROTC. Its exist
ence is less essential to the war effort than to fellow
students who wish to have the advantage of preparation
in the skills that will equip them for a better chance
of survival in the performance of their mandatory mili
tary service. Opposing ROTC may satisfy your hunger
for action but its crucial effect will be to remove the
option of valued training for many of your classmates.”
The case against
Abolition of credit imperative
Editor’s note: The case to abolish ROTC is an SDS
position paper compiled by Emily Kelly, Steve Holland
and Paul Gratz.
By EMILY KELLY, STEVE HOLLAND
and PAUL GRATZ
The abolition of the Department of Defense’s ROTC
programs on the college campuses is imperative.
The liberal position on ROTC is to make it extra -
curricular or to remove its academic credit. The liberal
argues that ROTC courses do not meet the high profes
sional and intellectual standards of higher education;
that they are an indoctrination of ideas rather than a
learning experience; or that the University should be
politically neutral. Furthermore they argue that students
have the right to join ROTC if they so desire, because
ROTC is a legitimate operation. All these arguments are
politically weak and avoid the real issue.
Academic reforms that allow ROTC to continue to
function are meaningless. The structure and operation
of ROTC courses are unimportant. What is important
is what ROTC does. ROTC is used to produce military
officers to oppress people throughout the world.
No one can deny that ROTC is an essential supplier of
the American military machine currently embroiled in
Southeast Asia. Many Americans now think that their
country’s policy in Vietnam has been misguided and,
perhaps, even immoral or illegal, but that their leaders
seem to be ready to admit this error in judgment.
We dispute this analysis. We believe that the involve
ment has always been harmoniously integrated in the
larger pattern of America's political and economic in
terests at home and abroad.
U.S. AGGRESSIVE BUT SUBTLE
The United States is the most aggressive and expan
sionist power in history, but its style is more subtle than
thdt of previous colonial powers. The U.S. does not have
the outdated forms of empire which might bring to
mind tropical colonies, colonial governors, and the righte
ousness of the "White man’s burden.”
It has chosen to call the modern empire, "the Free
World,” a euphemism that has nothing to do with the
quality of life of the great masses of the people who
live in it. The term “Free World” can refer only to the
freedom that large U.S. corporations exercise in the
exploitation of the people and the resources of the Third
World. This is the type of “freedom” for which the
U.S. is fighting in Vietnam, Thailand, Guatemala and
Watts—the “freedom” to exploit and oppress.
In the U.S. the concentrated power of the large cor
poration is fully intertwined with the political and mili
tary power of the state, whose policies have become
newly indistinguishable from the needs of these corpor
ate giants. The top 300 corporations like G.M., Boeing,
I B M., Dow and Weyerhaeuser proudly boast that by
1975 they will control 75 per cent of the resources and
the markets of their “Free World.”
Policy and administration in the full interests of Amer
ican capitalism is handled abroad through the State
Department, the AID, the Peace Corps, the CIA, and the
worldwide network of military missions. Neo-colonial
rule is maintained behind the facade of "independent''
governments But the oppressed people of these neo-col
onies have first hand knowledge of day to day exploi
tation and are resisting.
In Latin America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and
at home in the Black and Brown colonies, popular move
ments are growing in opposition to the imperialism of
America. These people have learned that they must
fight for their national liberation because they know
that American business interests are certainly unwilling
to relinquish their profits graciously.
GUARDIANS OF EMPIRE REACT TO THREAT
When profits are threatened, the guardians of the em
pire respond with all the means necessary to protect
their interests. This can be seen in the present at
tempt to “save” its investments, markets and resources
in Southeast Asia: 500,000 Americans troops fighting in
Vietnam, more than 40,000 troops in Thailand, special
forces troops fighting in Laos and in Cambodia to the
accompaniment of bombing of villages. Not only can it
be seen in Song my, Saigon and Santo Domingo, but the
blood flows in Birmingham, Montgomery, Dallas, De
troit, Berkeley, Chicago, and on and on . . .
We in the movement support the oppressed and the ex
ploited people both abroad and at home in their just
struggles for freedom and self-determination. We have
begun to see the increasing manifestations and effects
of American imperialism and we must now fight against
it, to lend more than passive support to our brothers and
sisters who are the daily victims in the sharpest on
slaughts of the imperialist empire.
American working people pay for the war in Viet
nam through higher taxes and the growing inflation re
sulting from a warfare state economy. Their sons are
drafted into an army not only fighting in Vietnam, but
whose presence in some 3,400 bases in more than 30 for
eign countries serves to contain and suppress the pop
ular resistance movements and further insure the con
tinued profits of American corporations. Rising unem
ployment and high interest rates are a direct conse
quence of imperialism. When high profits are sought
abroad and in wasteful defense programs the result is a
lag in domestic capital investment in much-needed
social reforms.
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PLAYS BIG ROLE
The American university plays a very critical role in
supporting the smooth functioning of imperialism. Its
proclaimed “isolation,” "political neutrality,” and “ivory
towerism” are all myths. As an integrated social insti
tution controlled and administered by the powerful few,
the modern university serves the corporate needs of
the American empire through recruiting and training of
students to manage its corporations, through support
of defense research, through indoctrination in courses
that foster “the Free World” myth and a myriad of other
myths and through the training of the army of imper
ialism with its ROTC programs.
The nationwide attack on ROTC is an integral part of
tiu anti-war and anti-imperialism movement that is
growing in the U.S., in Puerto Rico, in Eugene and all
over the world.
To a power like America it is not money or law and
order that keeps it functioning but, in the final analysis,
it is always the mass, organized violence of the state,
embodied in its military that is essential to its existence.
The warfare state is in desperate need of officers to
lead its conscripted armies. ROTC is the major supplier
of new officers.
Col. Pell has noted that more than 11,000 ROTC grad
uates fill 85 per cent of the annual input needs for new
officers in the active army. About 45 per cent of all
army officers on active duty are ROTC graduates, while
65 per cent of the 1st lieutenants and 85 per cent of the
2nd lieutenants come from ROTC. Col. Curtis once refer
red to Oregon as “a good producer,” but now the Army’s
freshman ROTC program at the University is currently
down 71 per cent in enrollment.
ROTC feeds off the class nature of the educational
system. Grade schools and high schools in low income
communities provide poor education for their students
and track young people into non-academic and vocational
areas. Young people from these schools are systematic
ally excluded from colleges and universities by “en
trance requirements,” bad high school counseling, high
tuition, etc.
Meanwhile, schools in high income communities orient
their students to higher education counseling and col
lege prep courses; kids from high income families go
to college, get 2-S deferments and have the “oppor
tunity” to join ROTC—they are the privileged.
ROTC SUPPORTS CLASS SYSTEM
Kids from low income families go to college on a token
basis; most get jobs, if they are lucky, or join the
ranks of the unemployed, get drafted or in the face
of the inevitable or out of desperation, join the Army.
Poor youth, especially poor Black youth, become the
foot soldiers and well-off youth becomes the officers.
ROTC supports this class system and plays on it.
Col. Pell comments: “The armed forces simply can
not function . . . without an officer corps comprised
largely of college graduates. Who is prepared to trust
their sons, let alone the nation’s destiny, to the leadership
of high school boys and college drop-outs?”
Privilege obviously breeds privilege. “Nationwide, less
than 5 per cent of eligible college students take ROTC.
Yet out of this come 10 per cent of our congressmen,
15 per cent of our ambassadors, 25 per cent of our state
governors, and 28 per cent of business leaders earning
over $100,000 per year.” (Pell)
It is clear that if ROTC is abolished, the ability of the
armed services to function is hurt. Col. Pell says, “Let it
be understood beyond question that there is at present
no acceptable alternate source of junior leadership if
ROTC is driven from the college campus.” If ROTC is
abolished, the struggle against imperialism is advanced.
There is no obligation for the University of Oregon
to provide professional training for military officers who
will use their tools in the oppression of others. It has
been argued that the central role of the American mili
tary is to implement a systematic, long-standing policy
of securing world-wide markets for American invest
ments and trade. This objective implies the installation
and support of reactionary governments and suppression
of popular revolts.
The case for abolishing ROTC rests on evidence that
ROTC is essential to the smooth functioning of the Am
erican military in the pursuit of these policies This is
the real issue.