Starting to see the truth come out about ROTC on campus?

Last week I wrote this about the future of ROTC on many college campuses which had banned it following the passage of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

Will we be seeing ROTC and on-campus recruiting re-established at all the schools who banned it in the wake of DADT now that DADT is going away? I doubt it, as the leadership of many of those schools had probably been waiting for a reason to pull the trigger and DADT was merely a good excuse.

And a commenter added:

This reminds me of something I read on John T. Reed’s blog a while ago;

“The most delicious aspect of ending the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” would be forcing the colleges and universities who ban ROTC and military recruiters to admit their real agenda: they just hate the military. As long as the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy exists, the academics can cite that as their reason for banning the military.”

That alone makes the lifting of DADT worth it!

And now we have this by Colman McCarthy in the Washington Post:

It should not be forgotten that schools have legitimate and moral reasons for keeping the military at bay, regardless of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” They can stand with those who for reasons of conscience reject military solutions to conflicts.


ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex. [emphasis Murdoc’s]

Taints the intellectual purity of a school. According to an admitted opponent of ROTC.

As I wrote earlier, I think that the military and American society in general could benefit a little by the return of ROTC to some of these campuses. But if the only real result is going to be the open admission that DADT was not the real reason for banning it in the first place, that will at least be fun to watch.


  1. I think someone famous said that if we separate our military or warriors from academia, our schools will be run by wimps and our military will be run by fools…or something like that.

    Honestly, I’m starting to wonder if these stuck up, centers of socialist education are worth the money you have to pay to send someone to learn there…it seems all they turn out is politicians.

    1. Unlikely they are worth it. I’ve been around a lot of folks with pretty credentials from ritzy schools. All things considered, I would not trust most of the Ph.D.’s I’ve met to walk my dog. The exceptions are truly formidable people, but it is a short list.

  2. Oh……….come on, now. Are there really any regulars here who didn’t always view universities banning ROTC under the guise of DADT being discriminatory as socialist/pacifist pretexting (as opposed to sexting which does posess a modicum of genuine social value; LOL!)at its worse?

    As a staunch decades long proponent of allowing all qualified Americans to serve in our military; I agree that DADTs long deferred demise drawing out at least some higher ed sociapacs was worth getting rid of it as military policy; even if there had been no other goals. Don’t think for a minute though that all the univeritat anti military types will emerge in plain view. Many will; from their superioristic perches (or is that pearchs?) to use cover and concealment while they seek new pretexts for continuing to disrespect and obstruct one of our nations finest institutions (the military). May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their beards!!

    1. I don’t know if anyone is really all that surprised. After all, lots of of the resistance to and banning of ROTC started in the draft/Vietnam years, not when DADT passed. But it’s nice to see them forced to abandon that reason and fall back onto this “we don’t want to contaminate our schools with those icky military cooties” line of defense.

  3. Why was there not more opposition to the repeal of DADT? I remember when Clinton got elected and announced he was going to rescind the ban on homosexuals. The Republicans and senior military went ballistic and Clinton came out with DADT instead.

    Now that was back in early 1993. What has changed? Has it been that we have been fed a steady diet of entertainment like Will and Grace? Most people I know in the military, especially the infantry, don’t want homosexuals to serve openly. Most of the support for allowing them to serve seems to come from non-military types whose primary concern has nothing to do with military readiness.

    I am surprised there wasn’t tougher opposition. I mean if the President had threatened a tax increase, or to cut the $3 billion annual subsidy to Israel, both Houses of Congress would have revolted. But apparently the Republicans no longer felt this was worth fighting.

  4. So, let me get this straight… giving students accessibility to (and thus, FREEDOM OF CHOICE as to whether or not to join) the ROTC will taint a school’s “intellectual purity”, but giving them NO choice will preserve their “intellectual purity”?

    Of course! We all know that strategists such as Sun Tsu, Carl Von Clausewitz, Mahan, and John Boyd were all vapid and intellectually bankrupt, because of their military associations! Yep, nothing to learn from them…

    …or *maybe*, someone at a certain school is insecure about the judgment of *their own students*.

    1. Whoa whoa whoa, Blacktail. What if some of those students started believing that America isn’t the evilest spot on the map?

      What if having ROTC students on campus and those students having lots of friends on campus shifted political views a percentage point or two? Then where would advanced education be?

  5. Pacifism taints the intellectual purity of most U.S. college campuses. Maybe “infects”, rather than taints. Actually, it’s more of a full blown pandemic outbreak among the faculty.

    1. Personally, I don’t have too much trouble with true pacifists. Really, I’d like complete peace, too. I’m just too practical and realistic to expect things to work out that way as long as humans are calling the shots. As long as the pacifists stay out of the way of those doing the work, I don’t have a problem with them.

      The problem is that most so-called pacifists aren’t really pacifists at all…they’re just cheering for the other side. Like the Cloumbia professor who hoped that the invasion of Iraq would be like a “million Mogadishus.” That sort of preaching should not be tolerated in an American university.

  6. Even true pacifists are “free riders” on the backs of those willing to defend and fight. So even them, though they often appear harmless, are parasites of a type.

    The only reason we can see them as harmless is because they are such a minority.

    As for the reality of peace versus conflict, recall the quote…

    “You may not have an interest in war, but war has an interest in you.”

Comments are closed