Press enter after choosing selection

The Pariah Of Sixties Anti-

The Pariah Of Sixties Anti- image The Pariah Of Sixties Anti- image
Parent Issue
Day
17
Month
January
Year
1975
OCR Text

    By Ellen Hoffman

     The University of Michigan ROTC program is about to regain academic accreditation. six years alter it was taken away during the height of campus protest against the Indochina War.

    Despite the strong moral and academic arguments against the very presence of the Army. Navy and Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps programs on campus, opposition has been nearly non-existent.

     Last week a curriculum committee in the Literature, Science and the Arts College (LS&A) voted five to two in favor of academic credit. The LS&A faculty is expected to give final approval in February.

    The arguments justifying military presence on campus, are the same as an earlier confrontation in the late sixties. but this time around, opposition has been almost nonexistent.

   "If one accepts that there has to be a military," said Professor Jens Zorn of psychology at the curriculum committee meeting. "l'd be distressed if there weren't reserve officers. Speaking from experience in the Navy. often it is only from reserve officers that dissension and corrective influence come within the Armed  forces. they should be trained at the best and most liberal institutions in the nation."

    "Will the ROTC recruit change the military, or will the military change the recruit?" asked Mark Gold, LSA student government president.

*********************************          The idea of humanizing the military by controlling ROTC and allowing its presence on campus is not new. It was the major reason used by the University's faculty in keeping ROTC on Campus during a similar controversy in the late sixties. Their report, later accepted by the Board of Regents. admitted "the academic return to the University of the ROTC programs is slight." but went on to point out that by allowing it on campus, civilians could maintain greater control over the military.

   Not everyone agreed.

  "ROTC has been in existence tor over 30 years, yet there is no evidence that it has the effect its liberal proponents suggest," argued editor Martin Hirschman in a 1969 Daily editorial.

    "And while ROTC is having no liberalizing effect on the military, it may well be having a militarizing effect on the University. For by sanctioning ROTC, the University as an institution will only be encouraging students to look upon orderly, mechanized. systematized. program-budgeted murder as a reasonable intellectual pursuit."

     A number of students and faculty worked to eliminate ROTC from campus entirety. Between l968and l970. mass marches, diag demonstrations. class disruptions, and even occupation of North Hall. ROTC headquarters, took place.

    Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) actively pushed for an end to all ties with the military on campus, not just ROTC. In a statement adopted in March, I969,SDS stated:

    ROTC programs should be eliminated as a concrete attack on the role of the American military throughout the world.

     "We must fight the illusion that the University is simply complying with the military machine, with the federal government. with big industry. The University is an integral part of that military industrial complex.

    "In short, an attack on ROTC, war research, and military recruiting on campus is a valid and powerful attack on the functioning of the American military in suppression of people's struggles against imperialism."

     In a study done by a subcommittee of the faculty senate in fall, 1969, it was revealed that not only did ROTC have credit in both the Engineering and LSA colleges, but the University subsidized ROTC operation to the tune of about $350.000. ROTC had  free rent at North Hall. and also was getting free clerical help, office supplies and building maintenance. "The committee is agreed that irrespective of the current political climate, the relationship between ROTC and the University needs to be revised. drastically in the opinion of some."

    The report, later adopted by the Regents called tor an end to the financial subsidies to "the Department of Defense, which we feel inappropriate," but stopped short of demanding ROTC's removal from campus. A new University-Defense Department contract negotiated in 1970 required payment for these services.

At least one member of the committee was not satisfied with the final conclusions. In a minority report, social work professor Eugene Litwak argued against any support of the military and its priorities.

    "The ROTC issue provides the University with an ideal platform to speak out - as a university - on the major problem of our - time do we concentrate our country's resources on expanded military expenditures or on solving the social problems of our society," he wrote.

     The majority report also tell short of urging non-accreditation ot' ROTC courses. claiming it was matter tor individual schools and colleges at the University.

    "The ROTC programs, being separate administratively from all other units of the University, have been free from the peer scrutiny which characterizes the administration of various colleges and departments, and which contributes to their continuing growth and vitality.

    "We recommend that the several schools and colleges allow credit only for courses taught by instructors holding regular acamic appointments." The-Duilv termed the fuculty's actions "contemptible." "The only conceivable reason for the Assemblv's wanting to maintain credit for ROTC is the SIÖ million the University receives for classified research." claimed Ron Landsman. "most of it from the Army. and perhaps some misguided desire to maintain this unhealthy status quo." The faculty's ináction regarding ilie demic standing of ROTC leads directly to the prpblem now lacing the L SA faculty. Since 1969, when credit was withdrawn foUowinga report term ing ROTCcourses "conjectinal. nun-analytical. clieaply moralistic. and often blatanlly propagandistic," the military science program has been sirengthening the academie content olits courses to Rt more traditional University standards. Academie standards hecame the sole criterion for judging accieditalion by the LSA curriculum committee kist week, witti fv)e faculty suppoi ling the move and the Iwo voting student committee membeis opposing it. "Yon ean'l avoid the moral issues." pointed out student Jane Praeger. "You can"t separate tlie questiiHl of academie meril and that ot'.politicul. moral, oí social implications. Teaching pebple hou to kill ean'l be justified in an academie institution like ihe l iiicrsity ." "Ifyou believe in academk freedom, the I niversity must allow subjects and men to eis! which are poliiicaJiy disiasteful to some," said dassical studies professui Don Camerún. "We are giving them the same riglits as oiher academie departments." Bnt the problem which remains is that ROTC' is nol like any other department. When qüestiuns uvei ROK' accreditation tlrst arose in 1968, the head it' the curriculum eommittee clahned there wjs an academie problem with all ROTC' classes nono allowèd lor intellectual inquiry. "Because every ROTC" course mixes propaganda and 'leadership1 training wilh genuine academie material." pointed out James Giden, English professor, "no single course could be singled out for credit." The Michigan Daily came closer to the major problem with military training on campus. In a 1 96& editorial, il said: "On the substantive level. it is ditTicult to avoid the blunt assertion thai training soltl iets whose ultímate aim is to kill is totally hostile to the principies of academia. "For all the academie gloss put on ROTC'. it is still a recruiting organiation for the military, and its commitmen! is still to the military, not to the "crealion and dissemination of knowledge.1 The ROTC issue provides the University with an ideal platform to speak out- as a university- on the major problem of our time- do we concéntrate our country 's resources on expanded military expenditures or on solving the social problems of our society.