To: University
Senators, Administrators, and Trustees
From: ROTC
Task Force
Jim
Applegate (Sen., Ten., A&S/NS), co-chair
Aaron
Lord (Nonsen., Stu., P&S)
Joseph
McManus (
Scott
Olster (Nonsen., Stu., GS)
James
Schmid (Sen., Stu., Bus.)
Kendall
Thomas (Nonsen., Ten., Law)
Nathan
Walker (Sen. Stu., TC), co-chair Sean Wilkes (Nonsen., Stu., CC)
Peter
Woodin (Nonsen, Alum)
Date:
Re: Final Report of the ROTC Task Force
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Abbreviations................................................................................................................ 3
II Executive
Summary...................................................................................................... 4
a.
Recommendations
b.
Some Rationales
III Report
to the University Senate................................................................................... 6
c.
Some Historical Background
Our
deliberations............................................................................... 7
–TF composition
–TF meetings
–Outreach......................................................................................... 8
d. Some
Findings............................................................................................... 10
ROTC and some
peer institutions
–Nearby
ROTC programs............................................................... 11
Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell...................................................................... 12
–The Solomon
Amendment
e. Legislative
History of TF Recommendations................................................... 14
–TF resolution of
Senate
resolution of
–Representative statements by
TF members of pro and
con positions............................................. 17
–Other relevant statements by
TF members................................................................................ 20
IV Appendices
Appendix
1. Final Voting Results of Task Force................................................ 22
Appendix
2. Summary of Deliberations by Rationale.......................................... 23
Appendix 3.
Report
on ROTC ............................................................... 24
Appendix 4. Proposal to Return ROTC to
Appendix
5. ROTC Web page, Senate Web site............................................. 42
Appendix
6. Three Student Government Resolutions........................................ 43
Appendix
7. University Petition with over 600
signatures.................................. 45
Appendix 8. Task Force Report to the Senate,
Appendix 9. Task Force Members’ Statements at
the
Senate,
I.
ABBREVIATIONS
CU
DADT Don’t Ask
Don’t Tell Don’t Harass Don’t Pursue[1]
DOD Department
of Defense
LGBT Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender
ROTC Reserve
Officer Training Corps
TF ROTC Task
Force
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendations
a.
The ROTC Task force was split (
i.
The Task Force unanimously agrees that the military’s
discrimination against homosexuals, as seen in the federal law DADT, is
inconsistent with the values of the community as expressed in the University’s
non-discrimination policy. However, the
Task Force is evenly split on whether or not DADT should prevent the immediate
return of ROTC to campus.
ii.
The Task Force was split on whether or not the return
of ROTC would have a negative or positive impact on the campus climate.
b.
Almost unanimously (9-0-1) the Task Force favored
returning ROTC if there is no longer discrimination against LGBT
service-members in the military.
i.
A majority of the Task Force agrees that there are
significant benefits in returning ROTC, such as financing students’ education
and
c.
No one agreed (0-6-4) with the following statement: Under
no circumstance should ROTC return to
d.
A majority (
e.
Almost unanimously
(9-0-1) the Task Force recommended that the University Trustees establish a
financial contingency plan to protect LGBT students who may be victims of Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell.
f.
It was unanimous (10-0-0) that if ROTC returns then
Columbia University should maintain full and independent control over questions
such as academic credit for ROTC courses, titles for ROTC instructors, and the
use of Columbia’s classroom, office, and training space for ROTC functions.
i.
A majority of the committee believed that the use of
University resources such as classroom, office, and training space could be a
reason why ROTC should not return.
Some rationales
g.
Five members voted in favor of the return of ROTC in
the 2006/7 academic year, or as soon as is practicable. They all oppose DADT, but believe the best
way to reform it is through engagement with the military. They believe the main
benefits of an on-campus ROTC program—above all
h.
The five members who oppose returning ROTC in 2006/7
believe that such a decision would not only violate
III. REPORT
TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE
SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The trustees announced the termination of ROTC in May 1969,
along with the launching of a new institution—a university senate, designed as
a reform for structural weaknesses in university governance that were believed
to have contributed to the cataclysm of 1968. This new institution addressed
ROTC more than once in its early years, but its definitive statement came in
A number of issues in the 1976 report reverberate today. One
prompt for the committee’s work was the threat of sanctions—such as the 1972
Hebert Amendment—against institutions that refused to cooperate with the DOD over
ROTC programs. Universities actively opposed the amendment, which never became
law. But the DOD exacted other sanctions, enrolling fewer DOD personnel in
academic programs at
The report also notes current efforts by universities to
persuade the DOD to establish regional ROTC programs that could accommodate
students from several schools. It also indicates that several
OUR DELIBERATIONS:
The 1976 resolution was the Senate’s last pronouncement on
ROTC, until now.
On
Task Force
Composition
Our Task Force was to have six
students, five faculty, and one alumnus. The founding resolution assigned
responsibility for appointing the members to the Senate Executive Committee,
but the Student Affairs Committee successfully amended this procedure on the
floor, providing for the Education Committee to appoint two of the faculty
members and two of the students; for Faculty Affairs to appoint the other three
faculty members, and for Student Affairs to appoint the other four students.
Alumni Relations was asked to appoint the alumni member.
One student appointee, Derek
Wilder (nonsen., GS), had to withdraw from the Task Force before the first
meeting in the fall. He was replaced by Sen. James Schmid (Bus.). Two other
original members, Sens. Robert Pollack (Ten., A&S/NS) and Sean Kelly (Stu.,
SEAS), were unable to attend most meetings last fall, and stepped down in
February. They were not replaced, and the Task Force finished its work with 10
members.
Task Force Meetings
The Task Force met for the first
time last October, and has met more than a dozen times. Guests at its regular
meetings have included the following:
--Steven Brozak, a 1982 GS graduate with two decades of
military service, and an advocate for restoring ROTC to institutions like
--Prof. Michael Rosenthal, who served as Associate Dean of
Columbia College for nearly two decades, and helped arrange off-campus ROTC opportunities
for undergraduates in the early 1980s.
--Jeff Williams, a third-year
--Beryl Abrams,
an associate general counsel at
Outreach
The Task Force sought the views of the
Emails
The Task Force solicited e-mails from the
Letters
Apart fom the e-mail collection, the Task Force has
received a dozen letters, mostly from pro-ROTC alumni.
Student
government resolutions
The student governments of General Studies, Law, and Union Theological
Seminary sent formal resolutions opposing the return of ROTC (Appendix 6).
Petitions
A petition opposing the return of ROTC, written by Prof.
Ilan Meyer of the School of Public Health and signed by more than 600 faculty,
students, administrators, alumni, and staff of Columbia University, was
presented to the Senate on April 15. The text of the petition is available here
as Appendix 7; the full document, with signatures, is available in the Senate Office,
406 low.
Town
hall meeting
On
Special
Senate session of
A preliminary
report of the conclusions of the Task Force was on the agenda of the Senate’s April
1 plenary, but it had to be postponed when another group claimed the meeting
room at 3 pm—nearly two hours into the meeting—before the Task Force could
report. So President Bollinger authorized a special Senate meeting devoted
exclusively to ROTC two weeks later, on April 15. About 35 senators attended,
along with about 15 spectators. A full transcript of the meeting, which ran
over two hours, is available on the Senate Web site.
Regular
Senate meetings
i.
Today’s plenary meeting is the sixth in the past year with
ROTC on the agenda. The others are:
Proceedings of these meetings are on the
Senate Web site.
SOME FINDINGS
ROTC and Some Peer Institutions
Six of the eight Ivy schools
dismissed ROTC during the Vietnam War—
Harvard now has a contingent of
40 students in the Army ROTC program at nearby MIT. The Harvard faculty voted to end its
connection with ROTC in 1969, and the ROTC building was burned to the ground a
year later. But before long students were participating in a program at MIT,
with some payments to MIT from the Harvard administration. The faculty voted to
end this financial arrangement in the early 1990s in protest against
discrimination against homosexuals in the military, and to bar ROTC
commissioning exercises from the Harvard campus. But some alumni donors assumed
the costs of participation in the MIT program, and the administration has held
ROTC ceremonies on campus, with President Summers in attendance, despite the
faculty ban. ROTC supporters are pursuing an active campaign to establish a
small, formal ROTC presence at Harvard.
Cornell and Penn have active,
longstanding on-campus ROTC programs. The Penn NROTC program, founded in 1940.
hosts a
Cornell has Army, Navy and Air
Force programs, and a total of XX students involved
The Dartmouth ROTC program,
restored during the 1970s, survived a concerted attempt to terminate it again
in 1994 when the Trustees rejected a faculty resolution calling for its ouster
on account of DADT. Now about a dozen Dartmouth students take ROTC on campus,
trained by an officer from Norwich University, which is about an hour way. The
only credit toward the bachelor’s degree for ROTC offerings is physical
education course credit.
Princeton’s “elite” Army program
grants “full-tuition-and-fees, plus an annual book allowance of $600 and
monthly spending allowances… which adds up to $31,000 for freshmen and $32,500
for seniors” (Princeton Army ROTC website, April 14, 2005). Hypothetically, if 40
MIT provides on-campus Army,
Navy and Air Force ROTC programs for a total of 144 students (68 of their own),
including contingents from Harvard, Tufts,
AIR FORCE PROGRAM AT
The Colonel brought to our
attention Title 10
Funding v. Scholarships:
It is worth noting that ROTC
funds are not fundamentally “scholarships,” but rather advanced
contracts. In order to receive the funds, one must become a “contracted”
cadet or midshipman, signing an agreement to complete the ROTC program and to
serve for a number of years after graduation (4 on active duty, or 8 in the
Reserves). Students continue to receive funding for the remainder of their
involvement.
DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL:
Not all citizens of the
Since the establishment of DADT
in 1993, some 10,000 GLBT servicemembers have been discharged from the military
because of their sexual orientation.
THE SOLOMON AMENDMENT
Most law schools determined that
the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, like the military’s earlier bans on
homosexuality, violated their own nondiscrimination policies, and they
accordingly barred military recruiters from their campuses.
In 1995 Congress responded with
the first of the so-called Solomon Amendments, which denied DOD funds to any
law school that barred military recruiters. In subsequent years Congress
expanded the reach of the Solomon Amendment to deny funds from three other
federal agencies to uncooperative law schools, and later to deny all of these
types of funds to their parent universities.
Faced with the loss of many
millions of dollars in financial aid and other federal funding, many
universities, including
On October 29, 2004, President
George W. Bush signed an addition to the law—written by Rep. Christopher Cox
(R-CA)—providing that institutions that bar ROTC programs from their campuses
or prohibit their students from attending ROTC programs off campus will also
face the loss of federal funding.
A month later, on
There has not yet been an
attempt to enforce the added ROTC-related provisions of the Solomon Amendment.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Task Force distributed a
preliminary report to the Senate for the April 1 meeting, and then, when
discussion of ROTC was postponed, presented a revised preliminary report at the
special April 15 Senate meeting (Appendix 8).
At that meeting the members of
the Task Force each made presentations (Appendix 9), which revealed some of the
dilemmas the group faced. On the first question, an up-or-down vote on
returning ROTC as soon as practical despite DADT, the group was evenly split,
5-5. They also acknowledged that the near-unanimous vote to support returning
ROTC to
The Task Force sought a
compromise again at a meeting a week later, on April 22, and subsequently 6 of
the 10 members approved the following resolution:
Resolution
to ESTABLISH a Reserve Officer Training corps Program at
Whereas five of the ten members of the Senate Task
Force on ROTC voted to support the establishment of an ROTC program at Columbia
University in the 2006-07 academic year, and
Whereas five of the ten members of the ROTC Task
Force voted to support the establishment of an ROTC program at Columbia only if
gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members are permitted to serve openly in the
military, and
Whereas all students at
Whereas the military’s
current policies and practices with respect to gay, lesbian, and bisexual
persons are inconsistent with the values of the Columbia community, as
expressed in the University’s official non-discrimination policy;
Therefore be it
resolved that in the
event that gay, lesbian, and bisexual service-members are permitted to serve
openly in the military, Columbia should establish an on-campus ROTC program, and
Therefore be it
resolved that in the
event that an on-campus ROTC program is established at Columbia, the University
should maintain full and independent control over decisions regarding such
matters as the award of academic credit, titles of ROTC instructors, and the
program’s use of classroom, office, and training space, and
Therefore be it
resolved that Columbia
will continue to support those students who participate in area ROTC programs
and will notify students of their eligibility for the tuition stipends offered
through the ROTC programs offered at Manhattan College and Fordham University,
and
Be it finally
resolved that
Proponent: Task Force on ROTC
The Executive Committee did not accept the compromise
resolution at their meeting a few days later, on April 25, for two main
reasons: the resolution seemed to commit the university to a conditional policy
at an uncertain future date, and the explicit linkage between ROTC and the end
of DADT entailed political and legal risks, particularly given the recent ROTC-related
additions to the Solomon Amendment. The Executive Committee voted
University Senate Proposed:
Adopted:
RESOLUTION TO
ESTABLISH
A RESERVE OFFICER
TRAINING CORPS (ROTC)
PROGRAM AT
WHEREAS the Armed Forces are an essential, permanent, and unique
part of American society, and
WHEREAS the ROTC programs based in our nation's colleges and
universities produce a significant fraction of our military officers and future
military leaders, and
WHEREAS the maintenance of our Armed Forces is the collective
responsibility of all Americans, and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the better educated
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that
The titles at Columbia University
of ROTC instructors must be appropriate for their level of education and
professional accomplishment as judged by Columbia's criteria, and
Proponent: Executive Committee
REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENTS BY TASK FORCE MEMBERS OF PRO AND CON
POSITIONS ON RESOLUTION TO RESTORE ROTC
Of the many statements that Task Force members have made over
the last several months, we offer here two representative ones on the
resolution before you today, the first for the pro position, the second for the
con position.
THE CASE FOR ROTC AT
James H. Applegate
Professor of
Astronomy
Co-Chair, Task Force
on ROTC
The armed
forces of the
It is in this
context that a group of students and alumni have proposed the return of ROTC to
looking inward and seeing
The world in
which we live is a more complex place than it was during the cold war, and the
role of our military is correspondingly more complex and subtle. From peacekeeping missions to relief
operations to local wars,
The establishment of an ROTC program at
The University
must insist on certain conditions if ROTC is to return.
The opponents
of returning ROTC to
The purpose of
the University is the education of its students, and the creation of new
knowledge through scholarship and research.
The values which sustain us in this endeavor are the freedom of speech
and of inquiry, the right to express one's views in a forceful but respectful
manner and the obligation to respect the right of others to do the same,
openness and honesty in our inquiry and teaching. Collectively, this is what we call academic
freedom. This is what we are about.
The University
has developed policies which sustain us in what we do. These are important
policies, but secondary to the core values expressed in academic freedom. Our policies on admission and financial aid
are very important because they determine who the students are, but they do not
define us. Need-blind admissions is very
important to
does not define the College.
The University's nondiscrimination policy should be understood as one of
these supporting policies, not as a defining one.
We should not
read
Bringing ROTC
to Columbia would expand and make more visible on campus a program and career
path that, for practical purposes, is open to some Columbia students but not
others for reasons the community finds to be discrimination. The opponents of ROTC argue the armed forces
are "just another discriminating employer," and should be excluded
from campus for
this reason. I cannot
think of more powerful evidence of the erosion of the idea that the maintenance
of our Armed Forces is the collective responsibility of all Americans, or
demonstration of the depth and breadth of the civilian-military gap at
The ten
members of the Task Force are united in their opposition to DADT, which we
believe to be bad policy and fundamentally wrong. We do not disagree on issues of
principle. We do disagree on strategy
and tactics. The five of us who voted for the immediate return of ROTC argue
that our most effective way of abolishing DADT is to engage the issue and do
what
a university does best—teaching. We argue that, by far, the most powerful
agent of change we can provide is Columbia-educated leaders for the military.
Our opponents argue that the University should withdraw from the issue and
boycott the military until DADT is abolished.
They argue that this is a moral high ground. We argue that they are avoiding the
issue. You cannot affect change without
engaging an issue. Universities are
vital when they educate and irrelevant when they boycott.
The opponents
of ROTC argue that the establishment of an ROTC program at
A Columbia ROTC program is no more a
One of the key
lessons Americans collectively learned from the
welcome.
Shunning the
military is a choice that a private university is free to make. It is not a choice that Americans collectively
are free to make. It is a choice that
THE CASE ARGUING AGAINST THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF ROTC
Nathan C. Walker
Co-Chair, Task Force
on ROTC
M.Div. student, Union
Theological Seminary (’05)
Summary: Columbia
University should not return ROTC to campus because (1) there is no
demonstrated need; (2) adequate funding is currently available; (3) there is no
demonstrated hardship; (4) the return of ROTC is a potential financial threat
to the regional ROTC programs; (5) the University’s commitment to train
military leaders is not contingent upon an “elite” Columbia ROTC program; (6)
the military’s discriminatory practices are in direct violation of the
University’s non-discrimination policy; and (7) the return of ROTC to campus
will not reform the military’s discriminatory practices.
1)
There is No Demonstrated Need: Only 4 Columbia
students participate in the New York City Army ROTC program housed at Fordham;
only 5
2)
Adequate Funding is Currently Available:
3)
There is No Demonstrated Hardship: There is
no compelling reason why a ROTC program should be housed at
4)
The creation of a ROTC program at
5)
Military leadership is not contingent upon a
6)
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell violates
Columbia’s non-discrimination policy: The military's discriminatory practices (i.e.,
Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Harass Don't Pursue) violates Columbia University’s
non-discrimination policy and New York City Human Rights Law, Title 8, §8-107,
which makes it unlawful to discriminate against people because of their sexual
orientation. The proponents continue to equate the DADT with the
“discriminatory practices of Barnard’s admissions and the University’s
fraternities and sororities.” This
demonstrates the proponents’ inability to understand the U.S. Supreme court’s
definition of “invidious” v. “benign” discrimination. An institution, such as the military, that
engages in invidious discrimination is not compatible with a private
institution that explicitly upholds the principles of non-discrimination.
7)
A
In closing, there is no evidence to suggest there is a
problem with the current relationship with the regional ROTC programs and no
demonstrated urgency for the immediate return of ROTC to campus.
OTHER RECENT STATEMENTS BY TASK FORCE
MEMBERS
Scott Olster
Nonsen., Stu., General Studies (’05)
As a member of the University Senate’s ROTC Task Force, I
have had the privilege to witness and engage in most discussions concerning the
military program’s potential return to our community. In the latest weeks of this sensitive debate,
I have noticed that emotions on both sides, even among the task force, are
heightening and the quality of reflection of opposing viewpoints is
weakening. In the wake of this
deterioration, I would like to express a few (hopefully reflective) thoughts on
the debate as I currently see it.
The ROTC Task Force was asked to deliberate whether the
program’s return to our community was in the best interest of the
university. The task force met on a
series of occasions to acquire more knowledge of the ROTC program itself, the
level of interest among the
The vehement convictions of many of the task force members
frequently precluded the possibility of seeking creative compromises. Instead, much of our debate focused on the
same ideological disagreements. The
Department of Defense’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy was deemed
inconsistent with our university’s policies and ideals, but the task force was
split as to how to effectively respond to the discriminatory policy.
At present, DADT stands in direct contradiction to our
university’s non-discrimination policy.
The ideals of constructive engagement, while impressively idealistic, do
not solve the contradiction entirely.
Constructive engagement proposes a hope in the future that Columbia ROTC
cadets will serve an influential role in the revocation of DADT. If we accepted constructive engagement as the
sole reason to bring ROTC back to
ROTC proponents claim that denying the program’s return is
an act of hypocrisy because of
First,
On the other hand, proponents of the ROTC aptly point out
that
What is needed, however, is a compromise, not an outright
contradiction of our university’s policies and, more importantly, our
community’s ideals. A compelling
compromise, I believe, is one in which Columbia better advertises the existence
of ROTC programs in the New York area with the caveat on every publication or
website that the university does not endorse the discriminatory practices of
the Department of Defense, embodied most specifically in the DADT policy.
There are, at present, nine Columbia-affiliated ROTC
cadets. This number makes up less than
1% of
As the University
Senate prepares to determine their course of action, I call to President
Bollinger, the Executive Committee, and our entire community to support
compromise, deny ROTC’s return as an act of support for the greater health of
our community, and extend a continuously public hope that DADT will be reversed
in the near future.