Search Views


Browse Archives

Views

Diversity of Ideas: Military Education on Campus

November 20, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

COMBAT OUTPOST CASHE, Iraq -- Like many highly selective and wealthy colleges, Yale University, where I earned an M.B.A., has a relationship that is uneasy at best with the military. As the Yale community continues to debate whether to reestablish a Reserve Officers Training Corps program on the campus -- a conversation that is unfolding to varying degrees at other colleges and universities -- I thought my perspective might be helpful.

I am a Yale graduate deployed on a 15-month tour to Iraq, where I lead over 700 soldiers. I have spent three of the last five years in Iraq. Like many deployed units, my soldiers and I work to secure the populace, transition and train Iraqi Security Forces, build civil capacity and economic development, and work tirelessly in a dangerous, complex and tough environment.

As a leader, I must draw upon my ability to work with others, think and ultimately make decisions that are ethical, sound and appropriate to the totality of the situation. Every day I make choices, prioritize and lead in a way that is both informed and shaped by my collective experiences.

I was not part of a military family. I was born in El Paso, Texas. My father delivered milk and my mother worked at home. I have known my wife since kindergarten and together we move frequently, make fast friends and enjoy living in diverse communities worldwide. I bring to my profession the values, humility and work ethic of my family.

Similarly, I benefit from two very different yet enriching educational backgrounds: West Point, where I studied aerospace engineering, and Yale, where I earned an M.B.A. from the School of Management. The experience was life-changing. I rowed crew, took several courses at the law school and immersed myself in all that makes Yale special.

Not only did I acquire leadership insight and management skills that I use almost daily, but I was exposed to different ideas, I was encouraged to think more broadly and I gained a close cohort of lifelong friends who see the world from different perspectives. Yale gave me balance and has had a profound impact on how I learn, listen and lead.

Today, I not only plan and direct military operations and care for my soldiers and their families; I also work to improve conditions for the people of this war-torn country. I understand the potentially global implications of the actions of even the youngest soldier in my Task Force, and I frequently discuss with my forces the moral imperative to follow the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions, and to do the right thing even when the enemy chooses the opposite path.

My leaders and I set a command climate that limits force and seeks alternatives to disputes in a region that is quick to solve problems with a gun. Ironically, we all carry guns. I don’t pretend to be the Peace Corps, but my point is that the War Corps is not necessarily as blunt an instrument as perceived by some with limited interaction and understanding of the military that serves our society. The civil-military gap is growing.

Our nation needs and has historically had a professional and effective military, but at any point in time we only have the military we resource. As a Yalie in combat, I follow the discussions about ROTC at Yale online through the News, and, perhaps unsurprisingly, I support the more inclusive option of allowing students access to military training at Yale.

Many oppose such a move because it signals an acceptance of policies they cannot condone. It may be the notion that armed conflict is immoral or inhumane. Alternatively, opposition could stem from the nation’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy or our country’s disproportionately large defense budget. Both, it should be noted, are policy decisions that are decided by elected civilian leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill, not in the Pentagon.

Principled stands -- like those against ROTC -- are what I cherish about my Yale classmates, but I believe that because of those stands, and not in spite of them, it’s time to bring military officer development back to New Haven. The greater good is best served by exporting more of Yale (and the country’s other top universities) to all walks of life, not just those where colleges like Yale fit neatly, like academia, nonprofits, business and government.

I am not suggesting that Athens become Sparta. Yale is strong enough and will be made stronger by a return to campus of a program that was evicted at the height of the cultural and political crisis of the Vietnam war. Though some see parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, I do not. We are not a draft-dependent military, but rather a volunteer force that should, if they choose to serve, include sons and daughters of Yale.

Soldiers in my unit are graduates of Brown, Harvard, Berkeley and many other great schools that produce thinkers and problem solvers. Princeton has had a strong ROTC program that is close to 100 years old. Our military is a cross section of our society. That cross section should include more, not fewer, Ivy League graduates. The Army in which I serve is better for its diversity -- not merely diversity of color, gender and skills, but also diversity of ideas.

On April 1, 1944, the Yale News Digest published an report titled “World War II: 14,491 Yale Graduates Now Serving. Casualties: 218.” Times have changed and so has Yale, but liberals, conservatives and independents remain dedicated to serving others, including the nation.

Years ago Yalies said, with full seriousness, “For God, for Country and for Yale.” It’s time to revisit that commitment country to the forefront of Yale’s consciousness.

***

P.S. Since the original version of this ran in the Yale Daily News just 2 days ago, I have received e-mails, lots of e-mails -- some supportive, some angry and a small few very mean spirited. In the end, that is ok, because the goal was to encourage a discussion -- and we are discussing.

There is no sense in sharing the truly ugly e-mails. After all, while the pen is mightier than the sword, people are trying to kill my me and my soldiers at work here, so I can take a passionate, angry or over the top e-mail. I will share a polite e-mail that suggestions caution.

Rich, with all due respect, I would not want to see my kids fight a senseless oil war thousands of miles from my doorstep (or any war for that matter). I would not want to send my kids to Yale as a step to join
the armed forces. I am not really sure the armed forces of any country need the great thinkers that you speak of... Let's instead bring the troops home -- make love, not war!

I get that the "love not war" is tongue in cheek -- hope it is, or wrong war. We'll agree to disagree on the oversimplifications. I have heard all of this before, war for the sake of war, or war for oil companies, brainwashing on campus, and bring the troops home.

While I was at Yale an undergraduate in a class where I served as a teaching fellow said to me, "Why are my taxpayer dollars 'wasted sending you here, you are just a soldier.' " At the time I was a captain, just back from 6 months of UN peacekeeping duty and even then had already deployed into hostile fire zones in support of my nation's strategic objectives (and there wasn't a Republican in the Oval Office). While not typical of my experience in New Haven, that comment was helpful to my understanding just how big the gap was between our two worlds.

I don't see ROTC as some lock step stepping stone as this e-mail suggests. Yale students don't herd toward anything they don't support. I suggest a simple free-market scenario. What I advocate is giving them that choice, not drafting them to sign up for ROTC. Universities are intellectual buffets of ideas, so why not add some diversity to that buffet?

We are your military -- not some fringe militia with its own agenda. Don't like what we do, how we do it or how we are employed, vote, get the policies fixed. Easy. Standing armies aren't perfect. Mine isn't, but it is a volunteer and civilian led force.

Finally, on the need to keep thinkers out of uniform -- well again, I disagree. Tactically, this stuff isn't easy. We synchronize, plan, and conduct some pretty complicated stuff that requires every ounce of
creativity, intuition, and managerial insight. Military leaders conceptualize and apply strategy. In this business, thinking helps.

My parents didn't have much formal schooling, but are as smart as anyone I know and made/make good decisions anchored by good hearts. They didn't go to Yale. Education and intelligence aren't synonymous. I think we are well served to have intelligent and thoughtful leaders in government, business, nonprofits and, yes, the military.

Rich Morales is a 1999 graduate of the School of Management. He is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army and the commander of the 1st Battalion of the 35th Armored Regiment, Task Force Knight, in Iraq. A version of this essay first appeared in the Yale Daily News. The views presented are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or the United States Army.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on Diversity of Ideas: Military Education on Campus

  • thoughtful
  • Posted by theron on November 20, 2008 at 8:45am EST
  • An intersting article and thoughtful. As a 60's alum, I recall Daniel Berrigan (I think) making a point about the draft: a draft with its influx of diverse views helped keep the military from becoming an inbred mercenary force.

    At the same time, however, I worry about the academy becoming a part of the same military/industrial/neo-liberal complex that drives so many other economic and political decisions. During periods of downturn, with universities losing funding from the States, would they become more financially beholden to the military's influx of cash for ROTC, military-specific research etc? That is, little money for teaching/learning from the State, but lots of money for the military from the State?

    Still, this article adds to an interesting and important discussion.

  • Stop making sense
  • Posted by Frank on November 20, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • Lt. Col. Morales, thank you for your service to the USA.

    Given recent al-Qaeda speeches ridiculing the president-elect, the naive (if well-meaning) and rigidly narrow-minded at Yale will soon get painful "lessons" from those whom they would attempt to "pacify" with long-winded blather. You've made too much sense, unfortunately.

    To you and my own students attempting to reduce inter-tribal violence in the Middle East -- we're hopeful for your safe return. To enjoy the benefits of the country that much of the world would do anything to become a citizen of.

  • ROTC for the 'Best and the Brightest'
  • Posted by Philana Crite on November 20, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • This article is very timely indeed. I am often surprised at the number of people who are antagonistic to the military with little understanding of it as it appears in the various services. I am a veteran from many years ago and ROTC was my way in and this was as the end of the Vietnam War became apparent. I saw the miltary as a way to learn, work and travel and all of that happened. My first contacts with returning vets from Vietnam was impactful but prepared me for the active duty encounters to come. The training I received and the circumstances I had to operate in serve me to this day and most vets I have met , young or old, have a maturity beyond their years. People may not want war and I was a bit of a peace-nik even while serving. But my now deceased ret. Lt.Col husband reminded me that 'there are bad guys in the world'. His tours in Vietnam and Thailand had shown him other faces of the world. When I visited Honduras while a friend was serving on a joint Army-Air Force task force I truly saw the valor and pride of young soldiers and airmen and I was changed again. Today I still advocate for military service to young people and no I do not believe in war but armed conflict is a reality and not one of us is so evolved as to truly lay down our life without a fight in the face of threat to self or family. I do not agree with the policies or purposes for our present aggression but that does not change the fact that military service is valuable, honorable and yes, at times necessary. Remember ROTC was created to diversify the officer corps so that there were leaders from other than southern states. The argument put forth is in line with this. More diversity, different thinking, other life experiences are what comes from having ROTC prepare the future military leaders. And while it may not be your preferred way to serve it may be the most empowering life choice ever made for someone else.

  • The Problem with ROTC
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on November 20, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • Is there a danger that colleges might sell out to the military? Yes. It's exactly the same danger that colleges would sell out to other donors who financially support programs, and it should be dealt with in exactly the same way: by refusing to give up control of for-credit programs to donors. The problem with ROTC is not its connection to the military; the problem with ROTC is the military's demand for total control. No college should ever give any donor the right to control faculty hiring, curriculum content, and what students are allowed to attend.

    The alternative would be for colleges to create Military Studies programs run by qualified college faculty, independently accredited to meet ROTC standards, and open to all students. I can't understand why anyone would oppose that approach.

  • Posted by bob on November 20, 2008 at 10:05am EST
  • As I recall, Yale and other universities withdrew from ROTC in the 1960s because having faculty appointed by an external group, and allowing such faculty to create credit courses without the oversight of standard university curriculum committees was inconsistent with academic integrity. Since the military refused to change those policies then, it was impossible to allow ROTC to continue on campus. Is there any reason to believe that those policies would be changed now?
    I'm old enough to remember when conservatives warned of the dangers to universities of accepting federal funds (though at the time the object of the warning was grant funding). Clearly the warning was not entirely foolish with regard to military funding.

  • military ed on campus
  • Posted by pete , professor of biology at north country community college on November 20, 2008 at 10:15am EST
  • A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors has its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.
    Thucydides

  • Southerners? Acad. Freedom?
  • Posted by DFS on November 20, 2008 at 5:30pm EST
  • From Wikipedia: "The concept of ROTC in the United States began with the Morrill Act of 1862 which established the land-grant colleges. Part of the federal government's requirement for these schools was that they include military tactics as part of their curriculum, forming what became known as ROTC. The college from which ROTC originated is Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont. Norwich was founded in 1819 at Norwich, Vermont, as the American Literary, Scientific and Military Academy. Until the 1960s, many major universities required compulsory ROTC for all of their male students [my emphasis]. However, because of the protests that culminated in the opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, compulsory ROTC was dropped in favor of voluntary programs. In some places ROTC was expelled from campus altogether, although it was always possible to participate in off-campus ROTC."

    It was not to keep southerners out of the officers corps; it was to provide an increased multitude of officers to lead the increasing numbers of Federal troops.

    Post-Civil War, southern representation in the military has been incontrovertibly unsurpassed by any other region in the US.

    Attaching the word "mercenary" against our armed forces is an insult. There has never been a danger of this happening to us. You probably think there is an American Empire as well, Theron.

  • The pen, the sword and the care package
  • Posted by Wick Sloane on November 21, 2008 at 8:00am EST
  • A Columbia graduate, Carolyn Blashek, read this yesterday. She runs "Operation Gratitude," a non-profit that sends care packages to troops. Operation Gratitude is sending care packages to all 700+ of Rich's troops.

    Wow.

    www.operationgratitude.com
    www.youtube.com/OpGrat

  • Posted by bob on November 21, 2008 at 11:35am EST
  • Regarding John K. Wilson's comments:
    Certainly a "Military Studies" program established by the university itself and meeting the university's standards would answer the objection that ROTC under direct military control subverts academic integrity. However, there may well be reasons to oppose such a program on a particular campus: not all universities will or should add an "X Studies" program (fill in the X with whatever you like); there are budgetary and space limitations, for example, to what a university can or should undertake.

  • What the Military Does
  • Posted by RJS on November 21, 2008 at 1:35pm EST
  • So your job is "to secure the populace, transition and train Iraqi Security Forces, [and] build civil capacity and economic development"? How, then, have nearly 1 million Iraqis ended up dead?

    (See Burnham, Lafta, Doocy, & Roberts, "Mortality after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq" _Lancet_ 368.9545 [21 Oct. 2006]: 1421-8; see also their followup in _Lancet_ 369.9556 [13 Jan. 2007]: 103-4.)

    Surely it's worth recalling that the job of the military is to kill people, and killing people is wrong. We should not collaborate in mass-murder.

  • So, RJS
  • Posted by EngProf on November 21, 2008 at 3:55pm EST
  • Who do you think is going to stand between you and a terrorist trying to kill you? Do you think there are no evil people in this world whose intent is to destroy others? Do you seriously think our military has that mindset?

    Funny, somehow I bet the self-righteous who decry the military are the first to scream for help when the bad guys come for them, or for their families. I would hope they have the decency to be grateful. Probably not, though.

  • RJS.........
  • Posted by VanGogh'sEar , Student Affairs Officer at University of California on November 21, 2008 at 3:55pm EST
  • The primary job of the military is to protect our country, interests and citizens. It is the elected officials in our government who decide where, when and how to use the military. Don't like the Iraq war, do something about it. Run for office, write your legislators, maybe if you had done more than George W would not have been elected the first time and we wouldn't be in this mess. The Iraq war is on your shoulders just as much as anyone else. The bullets that killed those Iraqis were paid for by your tax dollars. You have your freedoms because of the sacrifices made by other individuals who, at times, had to kill. So, when your sitting in your comfortable home sipping your latte, just remember that it was the brave young Americans of the past and present who enabled you to have these freedoms and luxuries by putting a bullet in someones head. Also, just wondering, if you could enlighten us as to how killing is wrong and please don't just say "Prima facie" as that is what people say when they don't have a good explanation.

    Best,

    A Proud Marine Veteran

  • RJS
  • Posted by DFS on November 21, 2008 at 4:00pm EST
  • Let's just accept your premise for a moment, that we should not support the military because that would be supporting mass murder. Then let's not support the military at all -- through our taxes, laws, etc. In fact, we can live clean lives just by disbanding our military.

    The United States without a military. To whom should we surrender first?

    Of course, if you could waive a magic wand and instantaneously cause all militaries everywhere to vanish in one big poof, what would happen then? Think about it. How would disputes actually be resolved?

    I think that some group of people would have the idea to protect themselves, or to assert themselves, through some action involving force or the threat of force. In other words, militaries would reappear.

    Just as concealed-carry permits have been shown to reduce violent crime in every way -- the criminal has second thoughts about the vulnerability of his intended target and relocates his violence elsewhere -- so do nations usually think at least twice, and probably continuously run the numbers, before taking some untoward action across borders.

    It seems that taking your kind of stand against something you ethically oppose is not conducive to our survival. I eagerly await your comments.

    BTW, I think that if you do a right-click on a link, then copy and paste, it will appear as a link in your comment. I will go to them and investigate, and if my doubts about the 1 million are proven wrong, I will admit it. Will you do the same if I send you some links as well?

  • ROTC
  • Posted by AndyJ on November 21, 2008 at 8:55pm EST
  • Diversity should include all forms of business and public service. The military is the best system for education, motivating and moving large numbers of people to achieve a stated goal.

    Talking is fine. But when does the doing start-? Universities teach talking but are very short on actions that produce positive results. The military is great at teaching the art and crafts of doing difficult things. There will always be doers and talkers. It's just sad that we seem to have become a nation that prefers talking to doing...

    Military service is not for everyone. It should not be pushed on them by a draft or coercion. But then neither in Venture Capital, industrial manufacturing or truck driving. Looking down on another s choice of lifestyle and occupation is the antithesis of diversity. Again the difference between doing and spreading words like orange marmalade over toast.

  • Lancet?
  • Posted by JAl on November 21, 2008 at 10:15pm EST
  • RJS --

    I do believe the Lancet article has been debunked on the basis of ideological bias, poor documentation, questionable techniques. Lancet sullied its reputation.

    There is a phenomenon in psychology whereby we can believe the most outrageous things if they fit in our belief system.

    The numbers were unbelievable from the first.

    Do your homework.

    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

  • Posted by JAL on November 22, 2008 at 5:25am EST
  • Back in the early 90s one of our kids attended Davidson College. They had ROTC. It was a choice for those students who wanted to avail themselves.

    In the parents' information session one of the faculty asked the question: Who would we want to lead our military?

    His answer? Well educated men and women of character.

    It is too bad that the "diverse, tolerant" bastions of elite education in America choose to marginalize one of the central reasons for the federal government to exist.

  • Posted by aeroeng at U.S. Naval Academy on November 22, 2008 at 2:10pm EST
  • "Well educated men and women of character." - this is something that we military officers strive to be every day. As a graduate of a service academy, I have heard this phrase often in my career. I have met some of the most intelligent and highly educated officers during my approximately 6 years in the military. I pride myself for being part of such a diverse group of individuals. I have served with service academy graduates, Notre Dame graduates, Harvard graduates, and graduates from the University of North Texas. I am an aeronautical engineer through education and an aviator by trade, but I serve alongside political scientists, European history majors, biology majors, and physical education specialists. I serve with people who are liberals, conservatives, and independents. I serve with people of various religious creeds. We may not (and certainly do not) always agree with each other's decisions. However, agreement withstanding, we know that these decisions are based upon rational thought that we all have gained from our respective institutions of higher learning. This diversity in our backgrounds is our strength.

    We consider ourselves to be the standard bearers of our respective services. We are charged with leading those under our charge and upholding the reputation of the United States. Many of the situations that find ourselves in are not clear cut, and require analytical minds to come to an appropriate solution.

  • ROTC History (Wikipedia??)
  • Posted by cts on November 22, 2008 at 2:10pm EST
  • DFS: P. Crite's reference to a desire tp increase the non-southern representation among U.S. military officers, especially after the Civil War, is not without merit And, the Wikipedia article you cite is hardly authoritative.
    In fact, what we call 'ROTC' has a very long history. While ROTC leaders do trace the concept of civilian/military training back to [what is now] Norwich, ROTC, as such, was created by the National Defense Act of 1916. ROTC underwent many changes, including a new curriculum in 1948, under the Distinguished Military Graduate Program, that was intended to prepare civilians not simply to be broadly-educated officer 'material,' but to be ready to seemlessly move into active military roles. That curriculum was widely criticized by colleges for its poor academic content and atandards. More tinkering did not diminish the concerns of the educational institutions over time; many began to drop ROTC programs in the 50s.
    While anti-Vietnam War sentiment reduced student interest and undoubtedly motivated some anti-ROTC reaction among faculty and others, this was not the sole cause of the rejection of ROTC programs at civilian colleges. Rather, continued concern about academic quality, demands on student time, and lack of curricular control - even in-put - were significant contributors to the rejection of ROT programs on many campuses.
    That government funding of many ROTC programs was less than adequate, thus imposing burdens on the institutions, did not help.
    So, let's be careful about history, shall we? And, please, let's not all rush to Wikipedia for 'truth.'

  • Posted by Will Selling on November 24, 2008 at 5:40pm EST
  • I agree wholeheartedly with LtCol Morales' view that a wide gap exists between the military and civilian worlds, and even more with the world of academia. I know this because in the 80's I attended one of the most liberal, radical universities in the country in UC Santa Cruz. After two years I left and joined one of the most conservative, traditional institutions in the United States Marine Corps. Ultimately, the pursuit of a liberal arts education is extremely individualistic. In theory, students go to expand their mind. In reality, most students want a piece of paper which gives them as individuals a leg up on the rest of society. If a student fails a class or a test, it's really not the end of the world. Usually, it only affects that student. However, in the military, it is all about the team coming before the individual, which is necessary in order to provide success on the battlefield. If one person fails at their job, their fellow warriors can die.
    Eventually, I transferred to Bates College. My first semester there my reserve unit was activated for Desert Shield/ Storm and for many fellow students, I was the only person whom they knew who was actually affected by the war. When I returned, many students said it was too bad I got activated and missed a year of school. My standard reply was that I learned more by being in Saudi and Kuwait than I ever learned in a classroom. As long as our way of life exists, universities will be around. School can wait.
    By the early 90's the terms political correctness, diversity and equality were commonplace on campuses. My take is this: diversity should be acknowledged, but palcing too much emphasis on it is extreme and thus dangerous. It is counterintuitive to place a premium on diversity and then emphasize unity. The military does the opposite: it stresses teamwork and unity first, and acknowledges diversity when necessary. True, too much emphasis on unity can become conformity, thus stifling the individual. So, emphasizing diversity and individual freedom on college campuses does not mean it works in the military. As far as equality goes, the politically-correct version places emphasis on equal results instead of equal opportunity. I believe Milton Friedman has been quoted as saying that when you put freedom before equality you get both, and when you put equality before freedom you get neither. That is a real danger.
    Another danger is mistaking political correctness for a universal truth, when in reality it is only one of many socio-political views. Everyone believes their point of view is true, otherwise they would not believe it. Unfortunately, when colleges enforce political correctness, it is completely at odds with the goal of a liberal arts education: namely, expose students to various beliefs and let them think and decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. For all the cultural relativism which exists and which Allan Bloom warned us about, political correctness had become the one absolute. As Bloom writes, "Freedom of the midn requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable."
    Ultimately, by not allowing recruiters and ROTC on university campuses, those schools are playing politics, rather than rising above their own political views and inviting discussion and interaction. When some of my fellow Marines found out I went to Bates, they would say, "That's where they take young, impressionable 18 year old kids and brainwash them to some liberal point of view." Then, when fellow Bates students found out I was in the Marine Corps, they would say the same thing. "Isn't the Marine Corps where they take young, impressionable 18 year old kids and brainwash them in boot camp?" There may be a dash of truth on both sides. However, universities pride themselves on combating stereotypes in the name of equality, which makes it ironic at best and hypocritical at worst when they engage in themslelves. And that is waht happens when universities are out of touch with the military. For example, in college, students are expected to voice their social and political views. In turn, they get the idea that men and women in uniform are taught not to think for themselves. However, that is not true (only a stereotype). In fact, many Marines I know are very insightful and sound off. Our troops are expected to show tact when doing so, however, so it is not always obvious when they do. Troops do think for themselves, they just are not always in a position to implement those ideas. The biggest irony of all is that universities place so much emphasis on equality they fail to realize they are constantly competing to be more prestigious--and thus "better"-- than other schools. The most common complaint I hear about college graduates is that that very elie attitude is common, especially when students go straight from high school to an institution of "higher learning" without ever having served in the military, and without ever having a respect, understanding and appreciation for the military and those who have served.

    Will Selling

  • Thanks, CTS
  • Posted by DFS on November 25, 2008 at 3:50pm EST
  • I don't regard Wikipedia as truth. I was merely being lazy. I knew that the roots of ROTC were in the Civil War era, and that was the first "source" I saw.

    But I still resent, as a proud southerner, that the institution of ROTC had been represented as anti-southerner. And I stand by my statements of the contributions of southerners to the long tradition of excellent military leadership, in both the commissioned and non-commisioned ranks.

  • And, BTW,
  • Posted by DFS on November 25, 2008 at 5:20pm EST
  • Don't let Will's long post discourage you from actually reading it, just like those papers we always cherish as educators to read.
    He is but one of our "best and brightest" who has actually matured through the wisdom he obtained in the military, as opposed to those idiots on campuses everywhere who just spew everything they hear from their professors. Why do I assert that they heard it from the academy? Because no one else would think that way after actually doing something real in other regions of the world for a common goal. Even those acquaintances of mine in the Peace Corps tend to think that way. It is only that kind of wisdom which gives us reality.
    And, Will, perhaps a few distinct paragraphs would better make your points for the mentally challenged.
    Thank you for what you did.
    DFS, USA, SSG, Intelligence Corps

  • DFS
  • Posted by cts on November 25, 2008 at 8:45pm EST
  • No problem. Again, ROTC as we know it was created in 1916. Anyhow, I reread P. Crite's post, and I am pretty sure she was not defaming southerners in amy way. :-)

  • Posted by Will Selling on November 26, 2008 at 3:00pm EST
  • DFS,

    Thank you for your kind words. I think I wrote enough for now. Maybe I'll write a book and give more details there.

  • Posted by Dennis Ruhl on November 27, 2008 at 7:50pm EST
  • Universities worrying about selling out to the military? Haven't they sold out to everyone else? Don't the drug companies already own them? If a school doesn't like the military they can stop taking Uncle Sam's money any time they want.

  • CTS
  • Posted by DFS on November 30, 2008 at 6:20pm EST
  • (Sorry about the long come-back. It's actually been a good holiday!)

    I can stipulate that perhaps you're right about my comment about southerners.

    However, once the momentum was established during the Civil War for training new officers en masse, institutional memory by 1916 was still prevalent. I know -- I'm only projecting here. The idea of such training began there.

    Why doesn't academia now accept that this training should be conducted at the universities? It's for everyone's benefit, especially for the officer candidates. Does the position of the anthropologists has to become that of academia?

    Wisdom is still wisdom.