[81alum]

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.

[81alum]

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.