Wherefore the Military on Campus
Donald A Downs, The University of Wisconsin, Madison

A year ago I rather poorly moderated a “discussion” between the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin and a group opposed to the presence of ROTC on campus because of their opposition to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuality. The Chancellor more than held his own against some virulent criticism that made the event more of a confrontation than a discussion.

Chancellor John Wiley defended the traditional argument in favor of maintaining ROTC’s presence on campus, which is based on the model of the “citizen soldier.” The citizen-soldier model maintains that ROTC is good for both the military and the country, because it exposes future officers and commanders to civilian campus life and to an educational process that differs from the more ordered education of the military academies and officer training schools. Such exposure broadens the backgrounds of officers, and contributes to closing the gap between the military and civilian life, which is always a concern in a liberal democracy.

The Chancellor also alluded to other benefits from ROTC, though he did not delve into them at length. He mentioned that all students have a right to be exposed to military recruiters and ROTC programs, and that the ROTC’s presence added to the diversity of campus life. This latter emphasis sparked me to think: could a case for ROTC on campus be made that turns the citizen-soldier model around, so to speak? In other words, could ROTC and related programs (such as courses in military history, which are attended by ROTC and non-ROTC students) be justified on campus not merely because of their impact on future soldiers -- however important this justification is -- but also because of their impact on the campus itself? That is, could the presence of such programs constitute a meaningful element of civic education itself?

In addition to concerns about homosexual policy, opponents of ROTC on campus make two other claims. First, that ROTC courses are not intellectually rigorous enough to merit academic status. Second, that linking the university so closely to the military compromises the university’s independence from the outside world. Such independence is necessary for academic freedom to thrive. But these two arguments fall short. During the 1970s and 1980s, ROTC programs across the country were upgraded to make them consistent with university standards. (Both the military and universities favored this development.) And universities today are awash in courses, programs, and practices that are designed to make the university more “relevant” to the outside world, or to connect the university to such outside activities as politics, business, social services, and sports. Accordingly, claims to autonomy vis-à-vis the military ring hollow.

The homosexual issue is tougher, in my view. But it does not justify removing ROTC from campus for at least two reasons. First, most universities have very active programs promoting gay rights, and are very hospitable to homosexuals. It is hard to argue that the presence of ROTC signifies that universities are hostile to gays. Indeed, many universities actively strive to persuade the military to change its policy concerning homosexuals. Second, ROTC’s benefits are very substantial, which justify its presence on campus, especially given the gay-friendly environment that prevails on most campuses.

But the question remains: beyond the citizen-soldier model, what benefits accrue to the presence on campus of ROTC and related programs? As mentioned, the presence of ROTC can contribute to the civic education of students and the academic community. How might this be so?

One clue to answering this question is provided by the postures of several schools that abandoned ROTC in the 1960s and early 1970s. This movement was most prominent in the Ivy League, where such schools as Harvard, Yale, and Columbia dropped their ROTC programs because of those institutions’ anti-military beliefs. On many campuses today, the military is held in the same regard as religion: it is at best a necessary institution, but it deals with realities that are best left to others. This posture stands in stark contrast to the sense of obligation to national service that once characterized the Ivy League, which used to contribute a disproportionate share of the nation’s military and intelligence leaders.

A proper military presence on campus can serve as a reminder or example to students of individuals who are willing to make sacrifices to the nation out of a sense of duty. Both conservative and liberal theorists have defined civic education partly in terms of such values. But there are further pedagogical justifications that I will explore in a forthcoming essay.
NAS9:43 AM