September 12, 2008
Obama, McCain Want ROTC Back on Campuses
Both John McCain and Barack Obama criticized American universities that do not allow the military’s Reserved Officers’ Training Corps on their campuses. The candidates made their points during a forum on public service last night at Columbia University, which has banned the ROTC.
“Do you know that this school will not allow ROTC on this campus? I don’t think that’s right,” said Senator McCain, whose daughter graduated from Columbia. “Shouldn’t the students here be exposed to the attractiveness of serving in the military, particularly as an officer?”
“I think we’ve made a mistake on that,” said Senator Obama, speaking after Senator McCain and referring to the decision by some institutions to ban ROTC. “I recognize that there are students here who have differences in terms of military policy. But the notion that young people here at Columbia or anywhere, in any university, aren’t offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake.”
Both candidate’s statements were greeted with applause by an audience that included Columbia students, despite the fact that ROTC, which has been banned at the university since 1969, has been a source of numerous campus protests.
ROTC was active on most college campuses prior to the Vietnam War, with some institutions requiring mandatory enrollment for male students. But many colleges tossed the organization off their campuses as antiwar sentiment grew, and some institutions have recently argued that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding sexual orientation violates their antidiscrimination policies.
The Army lists some 270 colleges and universities that host ROTC programs. Others allow their students to attend ROTC at nearby institutions. For instance, cadets at Columbia can take ROTC courses at Fordham University.
rwiedeman | Posted on Friday September 12, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Obama Goes After McCain on Immigration
Next: Racing the Vote ...
This is sure to win Obama some friends among the radical Left! His campaign is coming apart at the seams and he is thrashing around desperately.
— TRB Sep 12, 01:09 PM #
It is incorrect to say that Columbia has ever banned ROTC. The military, not the university, banned ROTC from Columbia because the faculty refused to offer college credit for a program that wasn’t controlled by the faculty.
— John K. Wilson Sep 12, 01:19 PM #
President elect Obama,
We hardly know ye.
— P Sep 12, 02:25 PM #
As someone said, “ you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.”
Mr. President Elect calm down pleaseeee.
— fred douglas Sep 12, 02:32 PM #
ROTC programs have made major contributions to bridging the gap that exists between the academic and national security/national service communities. Accordingly, both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are to be applauded for their criticism of Columbia’s short-sighted and ultimately foolish banning of ROTC training from the university. That said, it will be interesting to see the impact that this has among Mr. Obama’s more radical followers, as it is yet another indication that he is, at heart, simply another politician trying to secure as broad a base of support as possible. One would have more respect for him if, as a Saul Alinsky acolyte, he remained true to his leftist roots and stood up for the banning of ROTC. At least John McCain has never shown such elasticity of belief. With McCain, what you see is what you get, and he’s looking better with each passing day…
— Publius Sep 12, 02:35 PM #
#2, I do not believe you are correct. Indeed, many colleges do not offer credit for ROTC courses or programs. Although the military services would prefer that credit for ROTC be given, they accept that many colleges and universities will not do so. The military has not “banned” any ROTC programs from a college or university simply for the “no-credit” rule.
— Doug Sep 12, 03:18 PM #
Nonsense! McCain supported immigration liberalization and now opposes it, criticized Bush’s conduct of the war, and now does not, criticized the Christian Right and now kisses their <>, etc.
As far as I know, on this issue, Obama never supported banning of ROTC on university campuses.
All politicians change their positions, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes bad. What else is new?
— Bill Edwards Sep 12, 03:26 PM #
So far, Obama has danced around the issues as much as he can without committing to anything specifically. His pro-ROTC position only shows that once he does answer with a concrete yes or no, the man is in trouble.
The voters may disagree with McCain’s or Palin’s clear positions on “when life begins” or that “the Unitited States military has an obligation to come to the aid of its NATO allies”, but they certainly find a definitive answer from a prospective presidential or vice-presidential candidate on any issue appealing.
Besides, Obama, the front-man for the Democrats, has an even more compelling obligation than a vice presidential contender to be clear in his responses. The voters deserve no less.
P.S. “Publius” (# 5) is right.
— Dr. Sylvia W. Sep 12, 04:02 PM #
#5 Do you think we’ve been sleeping? McCain is VERY elastic in his beliefs. I liked him before he started running for President. As #7 points out . . none are clean or virtuous.
— Jeff Sep 12, 04:03 PM #
There are people on the left who agree with Obama even though it is not a popular position on the left. I would rather see an army officer with a degree from Columbia than one with a degree from the Citadel.
— hyde parker Sep 12, 04:07 PM #
#2 is absolutely not correct. Many other colleges and universities don’t award credit for ROTC courses, or at least not for the full complement of courses. Columbia’s decision is truly short sighted in that the majority of our military’s officers come from ROTC programs, not the service academies. If we seek an officer corps that is representative of the people, then there is no better place to educate our nation’s future military leaders than at our public and private colleges and universities where students are immersed in discussions about respect, justice, and diversity, including sexual orientation. Columbia loses out – they put their head in the sand and complain about the military and the policies that are actually directed by the elected civilian leadership while many of our other prestigious IHE’s help shape the military leadership of tomorrow. Their loss.
— Chris Sep 12, 04:08 PM #
So let’s stop arguing about the past and ask what the benefit might be, and to whom, from ROTC being available on more campuses. Convenience for those who currently go to nearby colleges for ROTC? Improved enrollments due to ROTC being available? Isn’t it just a way of fast-tracking people into officer positions rather than working their way up? That didn’t work out so well in VietNam.
Many of my students today went into the military to get help becoming college educated, so I’m not sure it would have been a pleasant dynamic for anyone if they knew most of their officers in Iraq or Afghanistan already had that perq. I know that people used to go into ROTC for the financial aid aspect. That really should be better known. The class issues, or the perception of them, fester always but erupt in life-and-death situations.
Electorally, this is such a non-issue. It looks like one of those many many things said during campaigns that mean nothing – they can say what they want to get through the moment. This is not the issue people are voting on today. Maybe some day.
— E.P. Sep 12, 04:37 PM #
E.P. (#12), States:
“This is not the issue people are voting on today.”
Apropos, the subject of “Issues.”
In my opine, —- for at least half of the electorate, —- I am certain that “No Issue,” will “Merit” any “Consideration.” whatsoever.
Like the past, this election is more about “Personalities,” “Attacks,” based on “Distortions,” [or even outright lies] —- than “Issues,” or possible “Solutions,” thereof.
— zahid Sep 12, 05:14 PM #
Quibbling over ROTC is really beside the point. In a democracy the only approach to military service should be conscription — with no way for any privileged person to evade it!
If there had been a compulsory draft in 2001, do you think we would have gone to war in Irag?
But what politician dares to suggest a draft and still hope to re-elected or elected?
Do we dare to change the subject?
— NJH Sep 12, 08:40 PM #
The best thing for the current generation is a draft. The sacrifices my father (in WWII) and grandfather (in WWI) did should never be forgotten. Today’s college kids take for granted what their grandparents didn’t. Every generation during the 20th century grew up with the knowledge that they might have to serve.
And what make this generation any better?
“The draft” is not such a hideous notion. It made men out of boys, decent citizens out of inner city criminals, it defeated Nazism, fascism and should be brought back to show the lazy freshmen today that just go to college long enough to get financial aid and then drop, that they live now due to the many that served for something “bigger” than themself before they were born.
It will not happen in today’s politically correct, Nancy Pelosi’s “limosine Liberal” generation, but it should.
And, in the words of Robert Heinlein, I “thank the many sergeants that had to make men out of boys.”
Oh, but I guess I’m sexist because I said “men.”
The draft is needed, is a good thing, and for those that serve…
Thank you.
— USA Sep 13, 04:41 AM #
Of course, Heinlein abhorred a draft because it is essentially slavery.
Nevertheless, Columbia is morally wrong to bar ROTC form campus.
— JKP Sep 13, 09:19 AM #
Expounding on USA #15:
I was always opposed to the Iraq war, —- but I support the idea of a draft (even with two kids who could be drafted) —- in fact I would like to see a law that mandates a draft for any war, period.
The merits of a draft are that the privileged [in politics, media, business, etc.] all have a stake in war —- since it puts their very own loved ones in harm’s way.
Clearly, the above ensures that unnecessary wars are not started on a whim, —- and, the media does not simply rubber-stamp any administration’s positions.
Finally, in all fairness, —- both the Democrats and Republicans, who are in leadership positions, —-strongly and vehemently oppose the very notion of a draft —- it suits them both, for the privileged can stay out of harm’s way —- whilst the non-privileged [the least privileged in most case], can be made to bear the brunt of sacrifices.
— zahid Sep 13, 12:20 PM #
#12 (E.P.)
You misunderstand the purpose of ROTC as well as the manner in which the military operates. One does not become “fast tracked” into officer positions. Enlistment and becoming an Officer are two completely separate processes. The primary requirement for becoming an Officer is a college education. All Officers are college educated. The only way to become an officer is through ROTC, the Military Academy, or in a few cases OCS after one has completed college. One does not “move up the ranks” from the enlisted side to the officer side.
You state: “Many of my students today went into the military to get help becoming college educated, so I’m not sure it would have been a pleasant dynamic for anyone if they knew most of their officers in Iraq or Afghanistan already had that perq.”
Officers must be college educated. This is a requirement. Your statement does not make sense and you seem to be confused about the structure of the military and the roles that officers play.
— SW Sep 13, 12:27 PM #