Examining
the
the
military:
War and
Peace
Studies
War and Peace Studies
It's a necessary part of the University curriculum,
the standing ROTC Advisory Committee has reasoned in
its 45-page report to the faculty.
The report which makes 15 recommendations
regarding the University’s much maligned Reserve
officer Training Corps program was the result of a
l<»71 faculty charge to University President Robert
Clark Clark is to report to the faculty no later than the
October, 1972, faculty meeting on “progress toward
i finding > an acceptable alternative to the present ROTC
program ’’ The report, completed last spring, was
mailed to faculty members this summer.
Included in the report are recommendations con
corning additional course requirements for ROTC
cadets, reimbursement to the University for ROTC
costs, titles, qualifications and voting privileges of
ROTC staff, credit for ROTC courses and renegotiation
of the Air Force ROTC contract.
The recommendation which will probably have the
most far reaching effects on the most persons is the
proposed War and Peace Studies curriculum, as it is
designed for both cadets and civilian students.
The report describes War and Peace Studies as an
By JOHN PIPKK
Of the Kmerald
Photo by Phil Waldstein
ROTC: The University’s most embattled course.
attempt to examine “the role of military phenomena in
the world today, and alternatives to the use of force in
achieving national objectives.”
Such courses would benefit the military officer, the
report argues, but more importantly they would “serve
a genuine need in the liberal education of the responsible
citizen, whose daily life and whose very future are af
fected in countless ways by military phenomena and the
dominant position they occupy in the life of the nation
and of the world.”
In proposing such a curriculum, the committee
points to the fact that the United States and much of the
world are "spending more money for armaments than
on education and health combined.
“If these are, as it seems to many of us, disastrously
the wrong priorities, reflecting the values of death and
fear, not those of life and hope, it will take more than
either fulminations or pious good intentions to set them
right.”
Thus, the report sees the War and Peace Studies
curriculum as a beginning for changing national
priorities, “for they should help to provide the necessary
basis of knowledge and understanding for informed and
effective action.”
The curriculum would be administered by a director
of war and peace studies, who would be a permanent
member of the University faculty. Clark is requested to
PfOK> t» JdT'CS Link
1‘adHs graduate into the military.
appoint a director at approximately .30 FTE (full-time
equivalent) at the beginning of the 1973-74 school year.
With the help of a Committee on War and Peace
Studies—which would be composed of faculty members
from disciplines covered by the war and peace courses—
the director would be responsible for “identifying and
developing a body of courses” concerning the military's
impact on society.
Implementation of such a curriculum is not possible
until the 1975-76 year, the report says, because of lack of
funds, departmental apathy or opposition, and-or op
position by the State System of Higher Education
Chancellor’s office to the addition of new courses.
War and Peace Studies courses must be offered “at
a level that will make them accessible to the general
student as well as the cadet,” the report says, as some
possible war and peace courses in the present
curriculum have prerequisites or are taught at a level
that might make it difficult, if not impossible, for the
non-major to take.
As examples of War and Peace courses, the repoi^
lists courses from other university’s peace stud«
curriculums, such as “The Analysis of War and Peace,
“International Relations,” “Conflict Resolution (In
terpersonal and Intergroup),” “Literature of Peace and
War,” "Religious Dimensions of Peace,” “World
Economic Geography,” “American Foreign Policy,"
"Comparative Foreign Policy,” “International Law"
and "Diplomatic History of the United States.”
ROTC cadets would be required to select two
courses from the War and Peace Studies curriculum as
part of their programs.
This requirement puts "undue restrictions on the
over all academic programs of ROTC students,” ROTC
advisory committee member Barry Siegel says in a
minority report. Siegel says he feels the six additional
hours in addition to 30 hours in ROTC military
academic’course work—almost would require ROTC
students to have double majors.
Siegel also says he opposes paying for a director of
War and Peace Studies.
ROTC at the University has been the subject of
controversy for the genera! faculty for the past four
years.
The faculty voted in the spring of 1969 to retain
academic credit for the two ROTC programs—Army and
Air Force. In the spring of 1970, the faculty voted against
abolishing the program by a vote of 199-185. In the spring
of 1971, (he faculty voted to spend a year looking for
alternatives to the present ROTC program, and com
missioned the ROTC advisory committee to do this
l.ast spring, the faculty considered a motion to
abolish ROTC at the University, but turned it dowrn in
lavor of continuing with its own spring, 1971, legislation.
Along with faculty debate on whether or not to
abolish the program, 'here have been many campus
demonstrations concerning ROTC in past years.
But the question of ROTC on campus may cease to
l>o a question after this October After several months
work by the ROTC advisory committee—and the
completion of its lengthy report proposing a War and
Peace Studies curriculum-the question of whether
Holt should remain on campus, and. if so. in what
torrn. will again be in the facultv.'s hands.