(Written with guest contributor Evan Storms ’13.)
We’re just going to “come out” and say it: ROTC should be reinstituted at this university. There is no question about whether the federal government’s dubiously lawful “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy of discriminating against gays and lesbians in the armed forces, ostensibly to maintain “unit cohesion,” is wrong. That’s obvious. Queer groups on campus disagree, however, on how Stanford should evaluate the reinstatement of ROTC.
One simple misunderstanding has done much to impede progress. Stanford Students for Queer Liberation (SSQL) worries that the University doesn’t see repealing DADT as a prerequisite for reinstating ROTC. A statement circulated among the group reads, “The link between DADT and ROTC at Stanford is at best, artificial, at worst, misleading. Not only do [Faculty Senate] members demonstrate an indifference to DADT, … but [they] also betray contempt for proponents of its repeal.”
Their proof? Pulitzer Prize-winning Professor of History David Kennedy’s statements to the Faculty Senate on March 4. In the meeting, Kennedy stated, “The premise that underlies our bringing this question to the Senate is the assumption that the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy’, …will probably go away within the next year or two.” This clear statement of the underlying premise of ROTC negotiations shows SSQL’s fears to be unfounded.
Since the relevant decision makers have stated that DADT must first be repealed, as the University considers allowing ROTC back on campus, it’ll have to deal with the same issues it dealt with forty years ago when it decided to ban the program. Back then, the serious concerns were more about the academic implications of the program than anti-war sentiment (or other issues). According to Kennedy, when Stanford first negotiated the ROTC presence on campus in the 60s, the major issues were the “professional status of the ROTC instructors, the departmental status of the military science departments, and the awarding of up to 27 units of academic credit for ROTC courses taken at Stanford” – not the program’s ostensible fostering of “militant ideologies.”
In 1970, when the University accepted the newly negotiated academic dimensions of ROTC, there was little concern or conversation about ROTC being primarily a “military body” on campus. In fact – and rightly so – the University saw that the presence of ROTC at Stanford ensured some degree of what Kennedy calls the “interdigitating [of] the military services and civil society in ways that ensure that the military arm does not become too separate…from the civil society in our political system.” Kennedy says that excluding ROTC from campus “makes it close to impossible for Stanford to contribute in any material way to training leaders for a very important institution in our society and one that’s not going to go away – the armed forces.”
And he’s absolutely right. Stanford has an obligation to let students participate in a program that can offer students the opportunity to become both scholars and soldiers. Stanford should allow ROTC to have a presence on this campus to ensure that those who do choose to serve in the military are equipped to deal intellectually and comprehensively with the issues that they will face. If anti-war students fear the attrition of intellectual leadership from the armed forces, they ought to acknowledge the value of institutions of higher learning in educating the military’s leadership. The alternative is, Kennedy says, “a very dangerous development…where the military is increasingly separate from the civil society that is – theoretically, at least – its political master.”
Last time we had this debate, in the 60s and 70s, the military still drafted soldiers. Now, however, ROTC and post-ROTC military service are entirely matters of individual choice. Students can choose to participate in ROTC should it be allowed back on campus just as they can choose to serve in the military or not.
We disagree, fundamentally, with the argument that has arisen from those who would retain the policy that currently bans ROTC from this campus. The most heated opposition, in language if not numbers, to allowing the ROTC program centers on the symbolic significance of a military presence on campus. The claim seems to be that to host an ROTC program is to implicitly endorse war, militarism, and all of the uses to which the United States military is currently being put. In an op-ed for The Stanford Daily, Danny Colligan charges that “the gruesome reality of war” – the fact of “human beings getting killed” – is the “real problem,” and that Stanford must reject ROTC altogether.
But this profoundly misunderstands the place of ideological agency. The military (and certainly the ROTC program) doesn’t make policy. It formulates and executes military strategy based on orders from Congress and the President. Because the military is not inherently ideological, it isn’t the proper target of ideological opposition. It is the politicians deciding how the military is used whom we ought to blame. They are the ones espousing, and acting upon, particular ideologies. It makes far more sense to argue that the Stanford in Washington Program is morally problematic for connecting the University with the cause of unjust fighting.
That aside, beyond whether rejecting the ROTC program would be a legitimate political statement is the question of whether the University should be making any political statements. Is a University-sanctioned political statement compatible with Stanford’s values of free and open intellectual discourse? For the University to endorse a particular political position is for it to claim the prerogative to make decisions on behalf of its students and faculty as to which positions are right. And that prerogative necessarily makes the University a biased forum for ideas. Certainly, students, student groups, particular faculty, and the like have full right to make any political statements they wish. But out of respect for that right, the University itself should issue no political statements.
How, then, should it evaluate the ROTC program? Precisely as a program. Stanford’s considerations should be based solely on whether ROTC is fairly administered and presents an opportunity students can benefit from, just as would its considerations of any private company’s proposal for a program on campus. To extend its considerations beyond this, to use the ROTC program to make some political statement, would be worse than denying interested students that opportunity. It would be an insult to the moral capacities of all students, to our ability to judge the program independently and to reach our own conclusions—all in the name of an ideological position fundamentally misapplied.
Kyle O’Malley ’13 is a staff writer for The Stanford Review and is majoring in English; Evan Storms ’13 is undeclared.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
This article has a distinctly fishy smell, being packed full of red herrings. Let’s go through the prose and identify them.
“And he’s absolutely right. Stanford has an obligation to let students participate in a program that can offer students the opportunity to become both scholars and soldiers. Stanford should allow ROTC to have a presence on this campus to ensure that those who do choose to serve in the military are equipped to deal intellectually and comprehensively with the issues that they will face. If anti-war students fear the attrition of intellectual leadership from the armed forces, they ought to acknowledge the value of institutions of higher learning in educating the military’s leadership. The alternative is, Kennedy says, “a very dangerous development…where the military is increasingly separate from the civil society that is – theoretically, at least – its political master.””
Putting aside the question of from where this “obligation” that O’Malley and Storms speak of derives, Stanford already allows students to participate in ROTC. The question being debated is if Stanford will devote its resources as an institution to ROTC.
I must say that the idea that Stanford students are somehow better equipped to deal with military situations than non-Stanford students strikes me as an unfounded argument with an elitist tinge. I’m not aware of any studies concluding that knowledge of, say, French literature makes one any more adept at handling weapons.
I don’t know any anti-war students that “fear the attrition of intellectual leadership from the armed forces.” Could you please show me who you are referring to?
“We disagree, fundamentally, with the argument that has arisen from those who would retain the policy that currently bans ROTC from this campus. The most heated opposition, in language if not numbers, to allowing the ROTC program centers on the symbolic significance of a military presence on campus. The claim seems to be that to host an ROTC program is to implicitly endorse war, militarism, and all of the uses to which the United States military is currently being put. In an op-ed for The Stanford Daily, Danny Colligan charges that “the gruesome reality of war” – the fact of “human beings getting killed” – is the “real problem,” and that Stanford must reject ROTC altogether.”
The way you compiled my quotes together completely misses the point I was making. The argument I was addressing was, to quote, “the case that poor kids are disproportionately killed in war and [that to remedy this] rich kids should be killed as well.” I don’t accept this argument because the “real problem” here is “human beings getting killed”, not the “economic inequality of corpses.” Therefore, a humane solution would be to decrease the number of people getting killed rather than increase it. This is not why I oppose a military base on campus; rather, this is refuting a fallacious argument advocating that Stanford should embrace ROTC. If you want to read my arguments against Stanford allowing ROTC to operate on campus, I have plenty of them, and you can read them in the article you mentioned or in other writing I have done.
“But this profoundly misunderstands the place of ideological agency. The military (and certainly the ROTC program) doesn’t make policy. It formulates and executes military strategy based on orders from Congress and the President. Because the military is not inherently ideological, it isn’t the proper target of ideological opposition. It is the politicians deciding how the military is used whom we ought to blame. They are the ones espousing, and acting upon, particular ideologies. It makes far more sense to argue that the Stanford in Washington Program is morally problematic for connecting the University with the cause of unjust fighting.”
This is another red herring in your article. I’m not interested in meting out “blame” for one policy or another. What I am interested in is the nature of the university and whether it is consistent with the university’s mission to have military operations on campus.
And, although this is a bit tangential, I would contest that the military is “not inherently ideological.” Every institution has certain values that it cultivates and espouses. The military is typified by strict obedience of orders, hierarchical domination and massive violence. We could get into a more systematic critique of the military, but that would be going a bit too far off topic.
The last two paragraphs claim that Stanford is making a “political statement” by banning ROTC operations from campus. Again, a red herring. The prerogative of the university is to make a determination about whether an ROTC base on university property is consistent with Stanford’s values. It is not.
“This is another red herring in your article. I’m not interested in meting out “blame” for one policy or another. What I am interested in is the nature of the university and whether it is consistent with the university’s mission to have military operations on campus.”
“The last two paragraphs claim that Stanford is making a “political statement” by banning ROTC operations from campus. Again, a red herring. The prerogative of the university is to make a determination about whether an ROTC base on university property is consistent with Stanford’s values. It is not.”
I have two problems with your evasion of the actual issue at hand. First, I challenge your presumption in speaking for the entirety of the university when you say, a little misleadingly, that an “ROTC base on university property” is inconsistent with Stanford’s values. I also would like to point out – before I get into why this is incorrect – that you never address why.
If you actually read (and perhaps you have, but we wouldn’t know that since you never offer it in support of your argument) the Founding Grant, you would find the following:
“Its nature, that of a university with such seminaries of learning as shall make it of the highest grade, including mechanical institutes, museums, galleries of art, laboratories, and conservatories, together with all things necessary for the study of agriculture in all its branches, and for mechanical training, and the studies and exercises directed to the cultivation and enlargement of the mind:
Its object, to qualify its students for personal success, and direct usefulness in life;
And its purposes, to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I direct your attention to the last few lines. Part of the University’s official purpose is to affirm the principles of our democracy, which, constitutionally, require the maintenance of a military to protect national interests. Neither Evan nor I will engage you on the merits of this principle of our democracy, but we will argue that it is nonetheless central to its composition. Thus, your argument that ROTC is inconsistent with “Stanford’s values” is characteristically inaccurate. Actually, you may have been more intellectually honest had you said that “ROTC is inconsistent with Danny Colligan’s values” – and that’s fine with us. Like any opinion published in the Review, this is meant to create a forum for discourse, and your values certainly have a place in that forum. But speaking for the University, without offering an ounce of evidence, is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Laying claim to and defending your own value system is one thing. Laying claim to the University’s as a whole is another.
Of course it’s important to have an educated officer corps. Knowing how to use a gun is the least complicated aspect of what one does in the military. One could just as well ask if a familiarity with French literature would be useful in any walk of life. It would not be, because French literature is useless. Does that mean that officers should be uneducated?
And yes, I say officers because I’m sticking to the elitist, and correct, assumption that one does not want one’s $685b military run by a bunch of nitwits. Stanford would be an excellent place to recruit soldiers, and before you denigrate the motivations or intelligence of those in ROTC, you should meet some of the Stanford students who are part of the program.
Writing as an LGBT person, I think ROTC should be reinstated regardless of whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. Banning an entire organization from campus over an ideological disagreement strikes me as faintly totalitarian. If you disagree, don’t join up.
Democracy means living alongside people who disagree with you. For all it’s blather about diversity, most of the intolerance at Stanford comes from the left.
(Keeping the meme of posting a quote in the beginning) “And its purposes, to promote the public welfare by exercising an influence in behalf of humanity and civilization, teaching the blessings of liberty regulated by law, and inculcating love and reverence for the great principles of government as derived from the inalienable rights of man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” – the Founding Grant.
The purpose of the university, as stated in the Founding Grant, addresses public welfare above local interests. What matters is the well being of human beings, rather than the political status of agencies, institutions or sub-regions of the globe. If we agree with this principle, when making a decision (even if it is an administrative one), it is necessary to take into account its global consequences. Local policies and government endorsed institutions should not have an unchallenged priority status.
The authors of the article agree with Kennedy’s argument dealing with the undesirable consequences of an increased separation between civil society and the military: “a very dangerous development…where the military is increasingly separate from the civil society that is – theoretically, at least – its political master.” With the hint of “theoretically, at least”, Kennedy brings to our minds an image of a rebellious army that in a potential future could put at risk civil society’s mastery over the military. The argument assumes that the intellectual integrity and relation to the broader civil society of potential members of the army currently studying at Stanford would somehow make the army more prone to act morally.
To argue against this line of reasoning we don’t have to go too far. In fact, the argument is refuted by the authors themselves; they explain that to link morally the military to what the military does is to “profoundly misunderstand(s) the place of ideological agency.” They assert that “the military (and certainly the ROTC program) doesn’t make policy. It formulates and executes military strategy based on orders from Congress and the President.” For this reason, whichever are the ethical implications of the army’s actions, those who can be morally accountable are the Congress and the President, and not the members of the army. I would agree with this to some extent, but I do not consider that it is a sufficient reason to think that accepting a military program on campus is not inconsistent with disagreeing with what the army does.
When recruiting members, what matters from the army’s point of view is how resourceful they potentially are, something that does not depend on their personal values or cultural backgrounds. It mainly depends on their ability to advance the accomplishment of whatever the present goals of the army are. From this perspective, Stanford students stand out not because they are from culturally diverse backgrounds or because general have an impetus to contribute to humanity’s welfare. It stands out because a Stanford student has a considerably higher than average IQ and other specific cognitive salient features that are useful to optimally carry out orders that require advanced technical skills. For this reason, the scope of the effect of helping the military to recruit Stanford students is restricted to the efficiency and size of the military; that is, to the power of the army. Furthermore, allowing the ROTC program in campus also grants political power to the army in as much as it provides public approval of the practice of institutional endorsement to the military.
Although it is true that what the army does depend on what the policies are, to increase the power of the army at the present moment unambiguously makes the current policies more effective. When confronted with a decision like the one at hand, making a political statement is not only possible, but unavoidable. The university’s decision on whether ROTC should be reinstituted is politically relevant; it will either give more political power to the army or it will not, and in this way, it either stands in favor or against current war policies. Given the predominant disagreement that the Stanford’s studentship holds against current war policies (this can be challenged, but it is my empirical experience so far), military presence on campus would be detrimental to the positive identification of many students with the university, and for good reasons: they would feel that Stanford is not being true to its purposes.
Kyle,
If you look at my op-ed in the Daily (which you quoted in your
article) you’ll see I do quote Stanford’s Founding Grant. So it
puzzles me to hear you say that you don’t know where I cite it in
support of my arguments.
Also, one more thing that I neglected to point out in my last comment:
It seems strange to claim that if Stanford just does not devote land
and other resources to a particular military program, that constitutes
a political statement. And doing so would not?
Stanford2010 says:
“French literature is useless.”
Agreed. Voltaire, Rousseau, Zola, Proust, Camus and Sartre were a bunch of hacks. We have nothing to learn from them.
“Banning an entire organization from campus over an ideological disagreement strikes me as faintly totalitarian.”
Umm… totalitarianism is a theory of state. The fact that Stanford University, as a private organization, has the freedom to decide whether or not ROTC should be permitted on campus, demonstrates the non-totalitarian nature of our society. (The totalitarian counter-factual would be where the government forces Stanford to host ROTC.)
As the author of the SSQL piece, I find your piece an egregious breach of journalistic ethics. Not only did you quote a draft as if it were a definitive public statement, but also found it convenient to omit its context–SSQL’s concern that ROTC, even with the repeal of DADT, discriminates against groups protected by Stanford’s non-discrimination policy. Recruitment discriminates based on gender identity, not to mention discrimination in the form of harassment faced by women and people of colour that’s endemic in the military.
Instead of hinging your debate on the repeal of DADT, you’ve found it expedient to jettison the non-discrimination issue entirely.
{ 3 trackbacks }