"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."- Thucydides
Here at Tufts University we are guilty of separating our scholars and warriors. Due to the faculty's myopic opposition to the military, and because of the lack of involvement on the part of the student body, we are all negatively affected.
First of all, the faculty lies when they say they are opposed to midshipmen and cadets receiving academic credit for their military science courses because of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law. For those unaware, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" dictates that the military will not ask recruits their sexuality, will not investigate a serviceman or woman's sexuality without evidence, and that homosexuals will not announce that they are homosexual. If somebody violates DADT, they are prohibited from the military.
The proof that disagreement over DADT is not the only reason for the faculty's opposition is the 24-year hiatus between when Navy ROTC was kicked off campus and the implementation of DADT (1969 to 1993). It is a blatant and bold-faced lie to say there is no ROTC on campus due to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.
The disagreement extends beyond the faculty and administration. Many students are opposed to the armed forces on the principle that DADT wrongly discriminates. But let me convey that just because you are in the military does not mean you have to agree with this law. Protesting the presence of ROTC on campus because of this policy is misguided.
Politicians, such as former President Bill Clinton, instituted this policy. If the faculty, administration, and student body are opposed to it, then the most logical course of action is to protest politicians on Capitol Hill. In contrast, our campus on Walnut Hill is not the appropriate environment for protest if one disagrees with DADT. The military does not have the power to change "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," so why are we being punished?
The lack of ROTC presence on the Tufts campus sends the wrong message to ROTC midshipmen and cadets. In actuality, we need to encourage undergrads to be knowledgeable about, or actively involved in, the military. The potential benefits are numerous. Imagine highly educated and worldly students that have a military background. It is only with this experience that future leaders and decision makers will be able to speak with real credibility on whether this law is beneficial or detrimental to the armed services.
The fact of the matter is that ROTC is still banned from Tufts because the faculty holds an extremely liberal bias against the military in general and grasps at any straw to keep us off campus or punish us. Tufts' current policy of not accepting credits for ROTC classes punishes our midshipmen and cadets who are training to protect every citizen's democratic ideals and civil liberties. The TCU Senate in 2004 voted in favor of a nonbinding resolution declaring that midshipmen and cadets should be granted credit for these courses.
The faculty should respect the outcome of the resolution and approve these courses for academic credit. While liberal arts students graduate with 34 credits, ROTC students take an extra course each semester for a total of 42 classes during the course of four years. Yet these courses, taken at MIT in such topics as history, engineering, and leadership, are not even recognized on our transcript.
Another point of contention that limits the presence of ROTC on campus is the theory that the program would militarize Tufts. As Tom Ricks of the Wall Street Journal said, "It [ROTC on college campuses] would liberalize the military. And that's a good thing, not only for the military, but also for every citizen. The military in a democracy cannot be 'them'; it has to be 'us', collectively, all Americans."
The problem with the current schism between the military and civilians on campus is that students do not gain an appreciation and understanding for the workings and importance of the military. Misunderstandings are fostered by a lack of dialogue. As a result there is a gap between the future political leaders who will send us to war and those who are on the front lines fighting wars. The decision makers are increasingly illiterate in matters of the doers.
Author Kathy Roth-Douquet noted in the 1st Annual Kyle Fisher Panel on Civilian and Military Relations, that "at elite institutions, such as Tufts, only three tenths of one percent join the military." Out of 5,000 students at Tufts there are only approximately 20 midshipmen or cadets, a pathetic number for a proud school that during the Korean War had 70 percent of male undergraduates participate in the ROTC program, according to Tufts Magazine.
Perhaps if more of us brilliant and capable Tufts students joined, we could be on the front lines to prevent tragedies that occurred at Abu Ghraib, and Haditha, not to mention saving the lives of our fellow servicemen and defending freedom and democracy around the world.
I urge the faculty to reconsider their current policy in order to show outward support and solidarity for our troops, and to bridge the knowledge gap between civilian students and ROTC midshipmen and cadets.
I'll close with an invitation and a challenge for you to learn more about the ROTC program and the military in general. Future politicians, academics, and students need to be knowledgeable about our country's armed services.
For more information, visit the Web sites of the Naval ROTC's, Army ROTC's and Air Force ROTC's local chapters at www.web.mit.edu/.
Andrew C. Lee is a sophomore who has not declared a major. He is a midshipman in the Navy ROTC battalion.
