The CardBoard
Stanford and ROTC - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Stanford and ROTC (/thread-9250.html)


Re: Stanford and ROTC - rudruff - 05-24-2015

This was a concern when I was going through NROTC at Stanford in the late 80's. Part of this is the closing of many of the DOD properties that were scattered around the country as well. A few large installations got even larger, but a lot of other places shut down.

The gated community argument seems a little forced. I don't know many sailors who wanted to live on base.

Wearing the uniform on campus meant getting the occasional "Baby Killer!" shout, but in every case that was another member of the unit screwing with me.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - fishman - 05-24-2015

For a view on the draft and citizen/soldier, this article by two Stanford authors, Ambassador to Afghanistan and General Karl Eikenberry (now a Stanford PhD student) and Professor David Kennedy (emeritus history prof and Pulitzer winner) is an especially thoughtful and insightful one:


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/americans-and-their-military-drifting-apart.html?_r=0





Re: Stanford and ROTC - JohnR34231 - 05-24-2015

I'm not a big fan of forcing people to be part of the military when they don't want to be. I think it contributes to some of the discipline and morale problems we saw in Vietnam.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - rudruff - 05-24-2015

I would also point out that people most against the draft are often in uniform.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - JohnR34231 - 05-24-2015

(05-24-2015, 10:29 AM)rudruff link Wrote:I would also point out that people most against the draft are often in uniform.

Makes sense because they are the ones who have to deal with these people who really (and in some cases really, really) don't want to be there.


I always found it interesting that the term "passive aggressive" was coined by an Army psychologist.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - 81alum - 05-24-2015

The criticism of ROTC in the 1960s was simply an indirect criticism of the war.  Many young people came to think that war was immoral and anyone who voluntarily participated in it, or was willing to do so, was committing an immoral act.  I don't personally share that view, but I think the criticism of ROTC in that era really had nothing whatsoever to do with the ROTC as a program and everything to do with a particular war.

The criticism of ROTC in the 1990s and more recently also had little to do with the merits of ROTC as a program, but with the fact that it was an openly discriminatory organization.  Many universities wanted ROTC and agreed that our nation's officers were best trained as part of a broader educational institution to avoid the kind of isolated existence that the article talks about.  But most universities have non-discrimination policies that the ROTC could not meet.  When SJSU voted to remove ROTC from our campus it was with sadness and for that reason.  Congress via the Solomon Amendment forced ROTC back onto our campus with the threat of cutting off all federal funds, including the financial aid for all of our other students.  Coercing a university to accept a discriminatory organization did not enhance its appeal.

But now, with the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" long in the books, I cannot see any reason why the presence of ROTC at universities would be resented.  It is certainly my impression that ROTC at SJSU is well regarded, and none of my ROTC students have mentioned any acts of hostility in the last couple of years. 

If we want to avoid the kind of isolated warrior class that the article discusses, then we need a whole lot more ROTC, especially in blue states and non-southern parts of the country.  These young officers need to be exposed to a broader range of ideas than they will encounter within the military.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - rudruff - 05-24-2015

I think the article leaves out a couple of things about the officer pipelines that would weaken the geographic isolation argument. Between the academies, ROTC and OCS you have a very different way of selecting officers. The academies usually require a nomination from a Congressman, Senator, or the Vice President. That spreads out the field pretty quickly.

ROTC programs award scholarships dependent on the acceptance to the school as well. ROTC members aren't required to be on scholarship, but the time requirement is enough that there weren't a lot of people I knew who did it for fun.

Kind of ambivalent about having a program on campus, though. I did all of my training through the unit at Berkeley (yes, I drove to C.al 1-2 times per week my entire time at Stanford). While the commute was a lot, it also limited the amount of pointless events we had to endure. Open a unit on campus and it becomes a lot easier for students to be required to be standing in formation at 6am for no good reason.

OCS and enlisted pipelines are more likely places for geographic concentrations to occur. A lot of the enlisted men I served with came from small towns and had few options if they stayed where they grew up. Places with greater opportunities for social mobility are going to allow people to choose other options.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - rudruff - 05-24-2015

The Berkeley NROTC unit is the oldest and largest in the western US. It handled the NROTC training for UCB, Davis, Stanford, SJSU, Santa Clara, SF St, and I think even some guys from Sac St. And yes, we knew the Berkeley riot police really well.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - winflop - 05-25-2015

Not sure if it's still true today, but for MANY years the College Republicans at Low APR U was among the largest and strongest of any such organization on any US college campus.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - Nan3cy - 05-25-2015

(05-25-2015, 06:33 AM)winflop link Wrote:Not sure if it's still true today, but for MANY years the College Republicans at Low APR U was among the largest and strongest of any such organization on any US college campus.


That's part of the reason why the B..ears' whole "we're the working class kids standing up to the spoiled brats in Palo Alto" shtick is so funny (while at the same time so annoying).

Re: Stanford and ROTC - BostonCard - 05-25-2015

(05-25-2015, 10:17 AM)Nan3cy link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=12168.msg118962#msg118962 date=1432560839]
Not sure if it's still true today, but for MANY years the College Republicans at Low APR U was among the largest and strongest of any such organization on any US college campus.


That's part of the reason why the B..ears' whole "we're the working class kids standing up to the spoiled brats in Palo Alto" shtick is so funny (while at the same time so annoying).
[/quote]

Not sure that logic holds; there is only a loose correlation between socioeconomic status and political affiliation.  Plenty of advanced degree holders/professionals in the top 5% of the income distribution vote as democrats and lower paid blue collar workers vote Republican.

BC

Re: Stanford and ROTC - Stymie - 05-25-2015

I didn't know that ROTC still existed, but the older I get the more I believe that ALL 18-25 year olds, regardless of gender, race or physical/mental ability should be REQUIRED to do 2 years of National Service, whether it be in the military, or the peace corps, or community projects, or caring for a relative, or internships (menial or substantive).  This 2 years of service would be paid for by the US government (at a minimal wage, but including housing and meal allowances), and subject to strict rules of compliance regarding things such as "showing up", treating colleagues as equals, willingness to learn, etc.

Disclosure--I spent 2 years of involuntary servitude mostly in Washington, DC, and wished I was not there, but I learned a helluva lot just being there.  2 years seems like a lifetime when you are 22, but on reflection, it is just a very small, but highly important, part of your life.

Re: Stanford and ROTC - yvonne - 05-25-2015

What Percentage of Americans Have Served in the Military?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-percentage-of-americans-have-served-in-the-military/

Re: Stanford and ROTC - Mick - 05-26-2015

(05-25-2015, 05:06 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:What Percentage of Americans Have Served in the Military?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/what-percentage-of-americans-have-served-in-the-military/




I'm sure those figures include my sister, an enlisted person who became an MP in the army and who later received her PhD from Stanford.
Separately, I wonder if those figures include people like my brother, who, because of an accident in basic training was unable to complete a military commitment.