e-mails

Emails Sent to the ROTC Task Force

February 9 – 24, 2005

1. To the ROTC Task Force:
As a full professor at Columbia University, I wish to formally register my objection to returning ROTC to campus. My reasons are simple: I am opposed to the war in Iraq, and see this as the military's attempt to recruit for that war. I do not believe in seducing young and vulnerable people on campus with promises of paid education and other perks when, in this current climate, they would likely pay with life and limb. I do not feel the presence of ROTC would be conducive to open-minded evaluation of our foreign and military policies, which should be able to proceed unfettered on a university and college campus.

2. Dear ROTC Task Force,
Regardless of what is thought about any particular war or military action, the general need for a military is questioned by few. Most people, including most of Columbia's students, recognize the need for a military to exist, and furthermore want that military to be comprised of intelligent people with progressive ideas. This goal cannot be attained without the contribution of Columbia's intelligent, progressive youth to the military. Further, if joining the military is a career option desired by Columbia students, how can we allow those students to be denied the ability to do what they dream? While I attended Columbia, I knew many students interested in taking military/ROTC courses. It is nothing short of prejudice to fail to facilitate these students in pursuing their learning goals, simply because some other students do not share those goals. Finally, I agree that the military on the whole discriminates unjustly against gays and lesbians. This is something that ought to be amended as swiftly as possible; however, it is a federal law, and with the current administration in office and Congress dominated by Republicans, it is unlikely that it will be amended soon. Denying students the right to ROTC on campus because of the particular administration in Washington is cruel, particularly when it is an administration few of those same students voted for. I ask you to set aside your partisan beliefs and think for a moment about the purpose of a university: to foster learning in diverse areas and provide young people with skills to succeed in life. The ROTC fits into such a purpose. Do not deny students that which a university is obligated to provide.

3. After submitting my comments to the Task Force last week I discovered that MIT already makes the type of compensation I suggested in case a student loses the ROTC scholarship for reasons of sexual orientation. This is documented in two articles:

--"ROTC aid policy established: Move guards against loss due to sexual orientation" (19 March 1997, MIT News Office TechTalk): “MIT will guarantee an equal financial aid package to its ROTC students whose federal scholarships are terminated because of their sexual orientation. The policy, effective immediately, is the first action taken by an ROTC Implementation Team appointed by President Charles M. Vest to develop strategies regarding the modified ROTC program called for in a faculty resolution last April. None of the 102 MIT students enrolled in ROTC has had a scholarship terminated since the Department of Defense's "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy regarding sexual orientation was enacted in 1993. If this occurs in the future, a support structure has been established in the Office for Undergraduate Education and Student Affairs.”

--"ROTC Reinsurance Policy Gets Approval" (4 April 1997, MIT Tech): “The Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid recently approved a measure that would compensate ROTC students who lose scholarships because of their sexual orientation by providing supplemental Institute loans that would later be forgiven. This move represents the first and only fully-implemented action taken by the ROTC implementation team, which is responsible for realizing the recommendations of the ROTC task force approved in a faculty resolution last April.

Chan Casey, a first-year Law Student, raised the question [at the town hall meeting] of whether someone discovering they were homosexual during their university years would be saddled with huge debt to repay the tuition paid by the ROTC program. This is a good point, and although some students in such situations had the expenses forgiven, others were told to pay them back to the military. It would seem reasonable for Columbia to commit to providing such a student with a reasonable level of financial aid retroactively. As I learned at the 2003 DADT conference at Hofstra (http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/Cul_DADTFinal.pdf), at which I spoke, Hofstra has a special scholarship program for homosexual students meant to offset any extra access to tuition assistance available only to non-homosexual students (Susan Yohn, Associate Prof. of History at Hofstra, seemed particularly knowledgeable on this provision). Some involvement by Columbia in counterbalancing the discriminatory element of ROTC eligibility would be appropriate and would consume far less money than [would be] brought in by new ROTC scholarships.

4. I strongly support Columbia's decision to keep ROTC off our campus.

5. To the Senate Task Force on ROTC:
I write in comment to the proposal (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/annual_reports/03-04/rotc.htm) being circulated to bring ROTC and the United States Military to the Columbia Campus. As those of you who know me from my tenure on the Senate will not be surprised to learn, I strongly oppose this proposal for a number of reasons.

--ROTC is not a substitute for a good financial aid system. Proponents of ROTC would have us believe that the program is largely or even primarily some sort of scholarship program for students from less-wealthy backgrounds. While some students do, in fact, receive money due to their participation in ROTC, viewing the program this way is deliberatively reductive. ROTC is a military officer training program; it is funded by the Department of Defense, not of Education. Vice President Cheney (when he was Secretary of Defense) put it this way: "The reason to have a military is to be prepared to fight and win wars...it's not a jobs program.[1]" Instead, ROTC (like the rest of the military recruiting apparatus) serves to target disadvantaged youth with promises of education which may be difficult for those youth to obtain otherwise. It is of course important to provide access to high-quality education to all. The best way to do so, however, is not to require that students join the military in exchange. In the specific case of Columbia, an institution so wealthy that it could stop charging undergraduate tuition if it wanted[2], the way to make education more accessible is not to encourage more students to join the military, but to increase the availability of financial aid to all students, regardless of their choice of career.

--The university should not favor ROTC over any other externally-run job or internship program. Regardless of the argument above, the fact remains that some students currently enrolled in ROTC are so enrolled precisely because of the perceived monetary benefits. To this end, it may make sense to compare ROTC to other off-campus jobs that students may hold in order to help pay tuition. The University's current policy is that students enrolled in off-campus internships, paid or not, may receive only "R" credit for their work and do not receive any credits which may be used toward graduation [3]. It is, indeed, very difficult for students to take classes at other schools in the city and expect to receive credit for them. There is no reason why ROTC work, not reviewed by any academic department of the University, should be deemed uniquely worthy of credit. Furthermore, unlike most other programs, leaving ROTC can be financially very dangerous for students. A student who decides, for whatever reason, to leave the ROTC program, owes the military for the cost of any money previously paid towards that student's education.

--The military violates the university's anti-discrimination policies. Members of ROTC are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including its prohibition of gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members. Any student in ROTC who decides, while enlisted in the program (a not-unforeseeable occurrence among college students), to "come out" could be discharged from the program and, as described above, owe the military any money thus far paid towards that student's education [4]. This is in obvious conflict with the University's nondiscrimination policies, which wisely "protect against discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national and ethnic origin, age, citizenship, disability, sexual orientation, and marital status [5]." The University should not offer any programs which are not available to all its students. In addition to the well-publicized discrimination based on sexual orientation, the military habitually discriminates based on national origin. Civilians are routinely killed by the US military based on little more than their countries of residence.

--Bringing ROTC to Columbia will not "reform" the military. Advocates of an ROTC program at Columbia often argue that interaction between ROTC members and other members of the University community will somehow create a military which is more in touch with academic and civilian life. However, nearly 40% of all current military officers already come from the ROTC program, and yet the military has not yet been "reformed" in the way that the ROTC advocates describe. It is, at best, unclear as to how adding a few more ROTC members from Columbia would suddenly change the whole system. Indeed, when presented with specific examples of ways that the military ought to change—such as ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy or ending the bombing of innocent Iraqi civilians – ROTC members and advocates usually immediately insist that they have no control over these areas and disclaim any responsibility for helping to change them[7].

--The military "chain of command" is inherently antithetical to the university's core value of freedom of thought. A university is, at its best, a place where ideas can be debated, questioned, and discussed freely. A military is a place where questioning an order or policy can result in "dishonorable" discharge from the service. Someone in civilian life who is uninterested in working on a new project for his or her boss can quit and find a new job. Someone in the military who is uninterested in following an order to go to some country and kill people based on the President's whim can be jailed[8]. Some ROTC advocates claim, perversely, that the University's choice not to have a ROTC program on campus is somehow limiting the freedom of inquiry of those who might wish to participate in such a program. This is a flawed argument: ROTC is not an academic study about the military or a pro-military advocacy organization. Both of these ought to be allowed to exist on campus, and indeed do exist on campus[9]. Rather, ROTC is itself the military, and serves to train its members to be more effective killers and leaders of killers.

--The ROTC program is already available to Columbia students. Despite all the reasons not to participate in ROTC outlined here, a number of Columbia students (14, according to the advocates' proposal to the Senate) already participate in the ROTC program at Manhattan College, Fordham, or elsewhere. Although these students complain of the inconvenience of traveling to these other schools, they clearly show by example that it is already possible to be a Columbia student and a ROTC member. Surely the inconvenience faced is no greater than that faced by other students for must regularly travel about New York City for job, family, or other reasons. In any event, it is unclear that more students would want to join ROTC if only they did not have to get on the subway.

For the reasons argued above, it is clear that the conclusions reached in 1969 are still valid today: ROTC has no place on Columbia's campus. If I may be of any further assistance to the Task Force in its deliberations, do not hesitate to contact me.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Quoted at http://www.objector.org/before-you-enlist/hazardous.html.

[2] According to the University's IRS Form 990 (available from the Controller's office, the IRS, or guidestar.org) for the 2000-01 fiscal year (the latest year available when I performed this analysis as a student), Columbia had total revenues of $2.282 billion and total expenses of $1.841 billion, a difference of $441 million. Total income from tuition and fees was $461 million that year. Either tuition for all students could be reduced by 90%, or tuition could be eliminated entirely for almost all students, and the University still would have broke even.

[3] http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/fysaac/forms/rcredforinternships.pdf

[4] http://www.sldn.org/templates/get/record.html?section=19&record=741.

[5] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/eoaa/docs/nondispol.html

[6] See the bottom part of Table 4.3 at http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2001/chapter4/chapter4_3.htm. The figures are from 2001, but presumably are still approximately accurate.

[7] As one of many examples, see the advocates' response to the question on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in their initial proposal made to the University Senate.

[8] http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/19/1449235 tells the story of Camilo Mejia, who faced a court martial for his refusal to return to Iraq when he applied for "Conscientious Objector" status after witnessing the torture of Iraqi detainees.

[9] http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/lehman/guides/isc.html. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/su4a/

6. Hi, I won't be able to attend the meeting, but I wanted to put in my two cents: ROTC has no place on the Columbia campus because of the US military's discriminatory policies. Since the Morningside campus is so small, it would be hard for an active ROTC presence to avoid making Columbia look like it endorses the US military, along with all its actions, policies, and bigotry. The student body rioted because of an active ROTC presence in 1969, and we would still stand against it with renewed zeal. I chose to attend Columbia partly because of the diverse and protected atmosphere that was advertised. Until the military stops discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, citizenship, disability status, and all other statuses Columbia strives to protect, ROTC should not be allowed on campus. Also see [Columbia’s Statement of Non-Discriminatory Policies] (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/eoaa/docs/nondispol.html) [which says, in part]:

"The New York City Human Rights Law, Title 8, §8-107, makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to discriminate against any person because of their age, race, creed, color, national origin, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, or alienage or citizenship status. It also prohibits educational institutions from discriminating against persons in any of the above categories in the provision of certain accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges;” and

“Currently, University policies protect against discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national and ethnic origin, age, citizenship, disability, sexual orientation, and marital status."

7. To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to give my opinion about the ROTC program at Columbia. To get to the point, I oppose restoring the ROTC at Columbia for the following reasons:

1. The U.S. military has been, is, and shall be first and foremost a trained killing machine. Columbia should not perpetuate such an instrument of death.

2. From my experience at another university, I have seen how ROTC implements activities that divide, alienate, and intimidate other people. These include running across campus in formation shouting "Rape, Murder, Pillage, and Kill," and entering buildings with rifles that were supposedly not real, but I couldn't tell a difference. These activities were supported by the ROTC program at the school.

3. To hold a position of authority in this country, Columbia should not only foster learning by great minds, but also strive to be at the forefront of positive social change, including fostering an environment of learning and peace. Hosting an ROTC program goes against such an idea.

4. Finally, though I cannot speak to this point, people should consider what amount of resources (money/time/energy/etc.) would be required to restore and maintain such a program. Are there any existing programs that could use such assistance? Are there any existing student concerns that could use such resources?

Thank you for considering my opinion.

8. Hell No!

9. I was interested in the list of benefits to students outlined [near the beginning of the Proposal to Return ROTC to Columbia’s Campus submitted to the Senate last year (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/annual_reports/03-04/rotc.htm)]. It is a shame that the only type of “service to country” that is rewarded as is for “underprivileged students” to place themselves in a position where they may be maimed, killed or be asked to kill other human beings. Surely, if such a program is offered, it should be offered only in a context in which a student can achieve equal benefits by serving their country through leadership roles in non-violent public service, including education, healthcare in underserved communities, discovery of medicines, etc. In other words, if some want to bring this program to our campus, a choice of service in the military should be an option, not compelled by financial hardship, while students should have an equal option of leadership training for service to our country through less violent professions. While we all want the protection of a strong military, it also must be abundantly clear to many that misguided political leadership can misuse the idealism of many who seek to serve their country, ignoring the best advice of the highly-trained military professionals [such as General Shinseki] and instead sending our idealistic, hard-working, “underprivileged students” to their early deaths.

10. Dear Columbia ROTC Task Force,
I was at the forum on Feb. 15, 2005 and I wanted to clarify and add to my points, since I couldn't due to time restrictions: A few points to consider when debating whether or not to return ROTC to Columbia.

1) What is the goal of the university? Is it to facilitate debate - and promote the "marketplace of ideas"? Is it to present opportunities to learn, to have educational experiences, to grow as a human being in knowledge? I would argue in the affirmative, and to do that, one must include all ideas, all ideologies, or else it is a slippery slope of discrimination. Free speech must trump all. There is not ever a "safe space," because of free speech. If this doesn't occur at a university, where would it occur?

2) As for other university goals: if one wants to encourage the military to eliminate "don't ask don't tell" - as an advocate - one can only assume that CU grads in the military, over the long run, are the only hope. One little statement by the CU president against the military policy is not going to do much. It will be dismissed as another liberal university, and CU ideals will never get a voice at the table. Shouting slogans at a march is not very effective – it is from within that change is made. There is great precedent in this, from the business and academic world, with women and ethnic minorities in particular. It is sad to underestimate the impact of CU grads, and say they wouldn't ever make a difference in the military, for whatever reason, as some insinuated at the forum. Shall we just give up and not even bother to make a change?

3) Precedent setting: If one bans one group because they discriminate, where will it end? Other groups such as religious groups that don't allow gays to act on their identity, such as the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, may be next to be banned from campus. Contractors that don't offer same-sex partner benefits could be banned. Speakers from the military could be banned. Other companies that don't offer same-sex- partner benefits could be banned from recruiting. Maybe this is what we want, (but I don't think so), but we should be clear and consistent with our policies.

4) The argument that one can just enroll after college to become an officer is tempting, but it still restricts students from opportunity, and the ability to make the largest impact. For the military in particular, to make an impact, one must start out early and have a long career, in most cases. This means a military academy, or ROTC. A military academy does not offer the same liberal arts college experience as CU. I can't believe we would limit a student's choice of career. That is condescending and not the role of the university.

5) Other universities, even top-ranked ones, have ROTC. I can't believe they are "lesser" than CU (boy, are we elitist then!) and perhaps we should carefully look at their policies and rationale for allowing ROTC.

6) Who are we as a university think we are to tell students what to do? Which career they can and can not pursue? What ideas to follow? Let us not be so stuck in the ivory tower that we don't allow ourselves to associate with those red state people that (I believe) make up the majority of the military, and attempt to understand different points of view, and influence the future of the military.

7) As for the question of "why make an exception for the anti-discrimination policy?" -- I would say diversity of ideas trumps anti-discrimination. Ideological diversity is the heart and soul of the university. Without ROTC you lose some of that important diversity that is not otherwise represented. Free speech can make people uncomfortable, and is for that exact reason it is so important.

**If you eliminate ROTC, you eliminate (de facto) the opportunity to have those ideas heard in the most effective way.

** The university is the last place in America to have a real discussion of ideas. We should have all ideas at the table, or else we are shortchanging students. We should at the very least not purposefully exclude points of view. We are only shooting ourselves in the foot to not allow ROTC.

11. I vote no

12. I am writing to voice my support for the return of ROTC programs to Columbia University.

13. Dear Task Force--
Unfortunately, I cannot participate in tomorrow's meeting; however, I wanted to take this opportunity share my views on ROTC. I participated in the NROTC program at Univ. of California, Berkeley from 1991-1995. After graduating from Stanford University, I spent over four years serving in the Marine Corps as an infantry and intelligence officer. I am now in my third year at Columbia Law School. In my class of ~380 students, there are three former Marines. The NROTC program was a tremendous experience for me. During college, the most professional, dedicated, and hard-working students I knew were those in the NROTC program. NROTC provided me with the opportunity to serve my country and to receive an extremely expensive education at a fraction of its cost. Being a Marine was one of the few foundational experiences upon which I have built a successful life. To deny others the opportunity to attend Columbia on an NROTC scholarship is difficult for me to justify. Our country was built upon many sacrifices, some of which were undertaken by men and women in uniform. To indirectly undercut the value of those sacrifices by refusing to accept scholarships for, and provide training facilities to, our next generation of military leaders reflects poorly on the Columbian community, of which I am a proud member. It is also poor marketing on the part of the school. As the military continues to produce America's leaders of tomorrow, Columbia is doing the school's reputation, and its student body's education, a disservice by alienating those few incoming freshman who have the desire to serve their county and the credentials to earn an ROTC scholarship. Again, I wish I had the opportunity to attend tomorrow's meeting. I am glad the issue of ROTC on campus is being revisited, and I am looking forward to Columbia's embracing of this aspect of our society.

14. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight. However, I am writing to express my views on this matter. I feel very strongly that ROTC should be permitted to return to campus—for many reasons. At one level, any campus that prides itself on welcoming diversity and a multitude of groups should not exclude any group. As one can say about any of the others- those not interested, or actually opposed to the agenda of this particular group, simply need not participate. However, at a different level, it is totally inappropriate to bar this particular group. With the world being where it is today, it is particularly important to support our armed forces. Barring ROTC from campus is a direct affront to members of our armed forces everywhere—and to those of us who feel that they need all the support they can get. Beyond this, I also have a specific recommendation: I think that it would be appropriate for Columbia to recognize and give ROTC members credits for the courses they take as part of this program.

15. You asked for my opinion & I think it is a good idea. As someone who grew up with many male friends whose college fees were paid by this excellent program & who subsequently served their time (although not when we were at war) I think it is important to offer this to the University populations—especially at the elite schools whose reputation is more likely an attempt to not serve our country than to serve it. Military service benefited all who chose these programs in many ways—mentally, morally & physically.

16. Hello, I am an untenured faculty member in Political Science. I was also a commissioned officer (USAR, Inf.) until being honorably discharged about two years ago. I am on leave this year, living in Vermont, and will be unable to attend the open meetings. A "university" is universal in its coverage of subjects of knowledge. A weak second is to offer only those courses, programs, and ideas that do not lead to controversy, and that deeply offend no one. Today the Columbia community faces a controversy over MEALAC and some have suggested closing the department. Most Columbians, however offended by what might or might not have been said by faculty at MEALAC, find the idea of banishing a diversity of views to be incompatible with the fundamental spirit of the University. Over thirty years ago, Columbia cast out another group because many students, faculty, and administrators opposed the Vietnam war, and because they saw the training of reserve officers as supporting the war. We should encourage the expression of such opinions at this and any university. Indeed, there has not been enough agitation for or against anything on campus in decades. We should step back, however, from the notion that having something taught at the university is somehow an official endorsement, or that banning it expresses political correctness or some form of good taste. An intellectual pallet should be as rich and diverse as possible. Removing choices from students is not a principled response in a university where the marketplace of ideas is said to flourish, even for those who deeply oppose some activity. Columbia University prides itself on being a critical nexus of intellectual innovation in a dynamic, evolving world. Here of all places, ideas matter. If you don't like something, change minds, not options. Sound criticism of ROTC should be directed at convincing students not to enroll. Who knows, as those who advocate diversity on campuses point out, having ROTC students and faculty might even be enriching. Let us have ROTC, and let us have people who are against ROTC training expressing their heartfelt views. The idea of banning Reserve Officer Training because it is repugnant to someone should itself be repugnant in a place dedicated to learning of all types.

17. Dear Professor Applegate and Mr. Walker,
I am writing to express my support for the plan to bring ROTC to Columbia. My undergraduate institution, Yale College, did not have ROTC on campus, and when a girlfriend of mine wanted to join, she found it rather inconvenient to have to travel to a nearby school. This seems like it would be particularly true in New York City, where transportation is expensive and few people have cars. I also think that having ROTC on campus would encourage more students to join, which would benefit some Columbia students as well as the U.S. armed forces. Thanks for reading my letter.

18. To the task force:
I went through a university-based NROTC program many years ago and served on active duty in the Navy. In my opinion it is not a defensible position to keep ROTC off campus for “moral” or “ethical” reasons. The university itself is not a pacifist institution, and views itself as fully engaged in modern democratic American society. As we all know, Columbia was an important site for officer training and war research in WWII, and appointed a career military officer – Eisenhower – as its president in 1948. Both then and now, it was and is important for the country to have intelligent men and women at the highest levels of both military and civilian leadership. It saves lives to have intelligent educated military leadership. The service academies do not produce intellectuals or scholars, they produce (mostly) technically educated young men and women who are trained to respond and act under stress. Columbia-trained officers would bring a different perspective. I personally cannot defend our present university policy when I speak with students or alumni. I would guess there is now wide agreement on these points among students, faculty and alumni. If there actually are some undergrads who would participate in ROTC if it were here, then we should allow it to return. It would be yet another sign we have now finally recovered from the disaster of 1968.

19. As long as the ROTC continues to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, restoring it to the campus would violate our firm institutional stand against such a policy. We can not do the one without violating the other. Let us stick with the existing policy.

20. ROTC Task Force:
I am writing to express my VERY STRONG opposition to getting Columbia University involved in the ROTC program. The practice of luring young, underprivileged kids by using the bait of financial assistance in order to send them to die in a faraway land for no good reason is despicable to say the least. Any participation by Columbia in programs such as this is a tacit endorsement of Bush's hegemonic and militaristic policies.

21. To: Senate Task Force on ROTC:
I write not to repeat, but to better formulate my comments at the valuable open meeting last evening. The military is, or ought to be, the servant of the nation’s political will as expressed by decisions of democratically chosen public officials who are, or ought to be, politically responsible for those decisions. Departing from the long run of American history, military institutions are now permanent and large-scale features of the American polity. With the passing of conscription, the widespread obligation of citizens to share responsibility for military endeavors and participate in them has also passed. Social elites, including students at elite institutions, very largely escape the responsibility to serve, and thus experience directly the consequences of military actions. This poses a serious issue for the legitimacy and civic health of democracy. Of the Congress that authorized the war in Iraq, only three had sons or daughters on active service. Of policy-making elites in the current administration, very few served in the Vietnam period, having successfully avoided military service in a war they supported at the time and in retrospect. My students at institutions like Columbia react with incredulity if they learn, in casual discussion, that I trained as an infantryman in the U.S. Army. This reflects the political and cultural distance between Columbia students and American military institutions. For both military and political reasons, conscription is a policy of the past. The question now is whether the University, at the institutional level, will take the same attitude toward military institutions as do privileged elites. Generalized expressions of distaste for war, or for the military as dedicated to the application of violence, are in this setting self-indulgent and politically irresponsible. Democratic citizens have the right and opportunity to help shape decisions on war and peace by vigorous civic activity. But students and faculty at Columbia should not pick and choose among military activities they support or do not support by rejecting an ROTC program. Don’t like the action in Iraq authorized by Congress on October 16, 2002? Well, I don’t either. But opposition to American policies as a ground for rejecting an ROTC program, must also consider the consequences of allowing Saddam Hussein to have a choke-hold on the global oil supply (a policy rejected by Congress on January 12, 1991) – and leaving in place in Afghanistan those who attacked on September 11, 2001 (a policy rejected by Congress three days later). We cannot avoid responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of our preferences.

There have been, and will be “good” wars and “bad wars” in the opinion of citizens, including students and faculty at Columbia. That’s a matter for democratic politics to resolve, whether wisely or – alas – not wisely. But that military institutions form an indispensable part of the American polity for the indefinite future is certain. Will Columbia be a free rider on them, like other elite institutions, classes and individuals? Or will it enter into an educational relationship with the military profession as it does with others? To be sure, this imposes on the military the responsibility to draw on its growing corps of military intellectuals for teaching positions at Columbia, and to accept curricular requirements and standards. Neither condition held in the 1960s, and I was among those supporting the removal of NROTC on those grounds. These conditions can and should be met now.

At the public meeting, there were many accounts, on both sides, cast in terms of personal stories. Among them, we heard how ROTC programs offer financial support for needy and worthy students and of severe difficulties faced by homosexuals. These are authentically moving and, in human terms, serious. But they do not define the fundamental issue, which is at the level of high democratic politics and institutional responsibility in this phase of American history. The requirement to take responsibility for the consequences of our preferences applies also to those advocating an ROTC program. The military’s policy on homosexuality means that the decision to have an ROTC program is a tragic choice. Put bluntly, one good must override another. Probably arguments to the effect that a liberal arts education for officers will make for changes of this policy are exaggerated, at least in the short run. Change will come from the civilian leadership to which the military are subordinated. The US military derives its legitimacy from its subordination to civilian authority, both in the opinion of the public and its own eyes. The classic instance of civilian leadership in this arena, of course, is President Truman’s action in racially integrating the armed forces, starting in 1948. This action went against the opposition of the officer corps, and long preceded the civil rights movement. An expanded military role for women responded to the movement for women’s rights, also against significant opposition in the officer corps. The military have since come to support both initiatives, both out of practical necessity and with enthusiasm because they endow the it with enhanced legitimacy. In these respects the US military is a “model employer,” generally in advance of civil society, and a leader with respect to other militaries. On the integration of homosexuals, the US military is retrograde by the standards of European militaries that, like the US, have largely abandoned conscription. President Clinton’s abrupt attempt in 1992 to change policies towards homosexuals was politically inept, and worse. However, in the longer term, the counterpart of President Truman will emerge, as US society continues its long-term movement towards extended tolerance. Rejecting an ROTC program because of the military’s policy on homosexuals sustains the cultural and institutional isolation – unfortunately mutual – between civilian elites and the military. Again put bluntly, the dangers posed by this problem for the democratic polity override the damage done by the military’s policy on homosexuals. The latter is amenable to change, of which indications are clearly evident in American life. The costs of an unhealthy relationship between civic and military institutions can be catastrophic.

Lastly, an ROTC program at Columbia does not signify the University’s “militarization.” The very idea of “militarism” stems from a period when military and civil values were radically distinct. The 1960s, in all their complexity, were such a period. That time is past, though it can be sustained in precious enclaves like this University. Indeed, some presentations last evening featured rhetoric deriving from that period as if nothing had changed. Today, civic life must provide for competence in military matters and, correspondingly, military institutions must incorporate key civic perspectives. Columbia University, the site of one of the great upheavals of the 1960s, is uniquely well placed in symbolic terms, and certainly well equipped institutionally, to make an important contribution in these respects to the quality of American democracy.

22. Dear ROTC Task Force Members:
I am writing to express my very strong opposition to restoring ROTC to Columbia. As a gay male who is a student and employee of Columbia University, I find the proposal to restore ROTC to Columbia offensive and unacceptable. Just because ROTC is "bound by Federal Law as is the rest of the military" does not mean it is acceptable or justifiable to restore ROTC. This clearly would perpetuate the role of the government in deliberately denying the LGBT community the same rights granted to heterosexuals who participate in this program. Saying that ROTC "does not outright prevent openly gay/lesbian students from participating in ROTC: it only prevents them from receiving ROTC scholarships and being commissioned" is wrong and insulting. The LGBT community should not be given second-rate status and denied the same benefits and privileges as heterosexuals participating in the program. Furthermore, saying ROTC "prevents cadets from being open and public about their sexual preferences in the military" reinforces the discriminatory notion that being anything other than heterosexual is wrong. At a time when the LGBT community faces severe challenges to its civil rights, I find the proposal to restore ROTC to Columbia abominable.

23. The Battle of Harlem Heights was fought on the campus of Columbia University during the Revolutionary War. General Washington himself commanded American troops during the action. General Eisenhower, SHAEF Commander during WWII, served at Columbia after the war. William Donovan, founder of the OSS, graduated from Columbia. Columbia is training the nation's leaders. Depriving the country of this resource in wartime can cause less than optimal leadership of men in the field. As a veteran, a Columbia student [EMPH], and member of a family whose ancestors fought at the Battle of Harlem Heights, I believe that Columbia is a resource that will be of great benefit to the nation.

24. Dear Sir:
I am unable to attend the open discussion of ROTC, and I appreciate the opportunity to "cast my vote" by email. I was a college student during the Vietnam War and vividly remember the hostility of some students to ROTC on the Harvard campus. Whatever one's views about war, it is in everyone's best interest that our military have educated and thoughtful officers. ROTC is a voluntary program; the activities of the students in ROTC do not affect the lives of other students. I strongly urge Columbia to allow ROTC to return.

25. I can't attend the discussion but my view is NO. The United States military, for reasons that cannot be substantiated by empirical or scientifically sound data, continues to insist on treating a segment of Americans as second-class citizens. This bigotry against gay and lesbian Americans is against the Constitution and a major disgrace, especially when America claims to be the beacon of democracy and freedom for the world. This university has a moral and ethical responsibility to say to the bigots in the Pentagon, Congress and White House that bigotry in whatever form will not be tolerated or condoned. It is especially important now, when the tide in this country seems to be turning against secularism, tolerance and the liberal ideals of freedom and equality for all. Thank you

26. I am a Navy veteran and a student at Columbia. I think ROTC should be restored. The whole idea of higher learning is to expose people to a variety of ideologies and encourage open-mindedness. No one will be forced to join; people should have a free choice to do so and right now it's not even an option.

27. To the ROTC task force:
As a Columbia alum (CC '96) I have followed with interest the recent discussions of both military recruiting and ROTC on the Columbia campus. While I believe that non-discrimination is an important university policy and that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is misguided, I strongly believe that Columbia should have an ROTC program for its students. This would be an exception to the general policy of non-discrimination but exceptions are sometimes justified and have been made in other cases. Tolerance and non-discrimination are tricky values to apply universally. Should one tolerate the intolerant? Discriminate against the discriminatory? These are not just abstract philosophical questions but come up concretely, for example, with respect to religious groups that discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. My own view is that these conflicts can only be resolved by careful consideration of individual cases within the context of the university's overall mission of education and expanding the frontiers of human understanding. Achieving this mission requires free and open debate among people with different backgrounds, political views and life experiences. Including military personnel as part of this exchange furthers the goal of diversity on campus and will improve the education offered to students. The military plays an important and unique role in our society and it would be valuable for both the military and elite universities to have more interaction between their two worlds. The military culture should not be viewed in isolation from the fact that our officers and soldiers are asked to risk their lives both for concrete goals like defense of the homeland but also for abstract ideals like freedom, honor and fellowship. For them to effectively fulfill this role (and thereby perform an essential service on behalf of the rest of us) there needs to be an unusually strong set of internal cultural norms within the military as well as uncommon trust among soldiers. While this strong culture is part of an effective military it also results in relatively slow change in values and norms within the institution. This slow change can be beneficial when it preserves the importance of ideas like honesty, personal responsibility, duty and honor in a society that often seems to have left these ideas behind. But it can also be harmful when prejudice against groups such as homosexuals persists to a greater degree than it does in society at large. This is not a justification for such prejudice but rather a suggestion that we see the faults of the military within the broader context of the difficult mission which they have been given and the service that they provide to all of us. I believe that it is dangerous to allow a cultural chasm to develop between the military and the civilian elite who take leadership roles in the rest of society, and who often come from universities such as Columbia. By including the military (through ROTC and recruiting) in the life of the university we will accomplish three things. First, we will provide an opportunity for students to pursue career interests they may have and to serve their country. Second, we will open up channels of communications between important institutions that each have much to learn from such communication. Third, we can be part of an important movement for change that supports the military while pressing it to end its discriminatory practices. For all of these reasons, I hope that you will promptly bring ROTC back to Columbia.

28. I am not able to attend [the] meeting. If there is a vote, I vote to encourage dialogue with all, not recruiting our young people for senseless wars.

29. http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep99/html/chapter4/c4-commission.htm.

In light of the discussion on various commissioning sources in the branches of the military, you all might find the above link helpful. I am surprised this information had not been discussed previously by you as it is highly relevant. Again, I will point out that these numbers are in constant flux. More Lieutenants die in Iraq, the Army needs more infantry officers; less candidates pass the qualifications to become submarine officers, the Navy needs more Physicists and Engineers; less Captains get out of the Marines after their commitment is up, the USMC needs less officers. Above is a good guideline. Basically, anyone who has or is working on a bachelor’s degree and is under a certain age and healthy has quite a few options at any given time for military service as an officer.

30. Senators:
May CTV please film the event? I will give you a copy of the tape that week and I would also like to air it on CTV for the community to view. If this is possible, I will talk with Tom about getting an audio feed.

31. The answer is Yes. Please keep me on the list and call me to discuss when you get a chance.

32. No. Columbia should not be in the business of war. I cannot make the meeting but I think in the spirit of free speech the ROTC should be allowed on campus.

33. Perhaps you know this already, but the first term of the University Senate considered the ROTC question and adopted a resolution which, as I recall, left it open to the several schools to decide whether ROTC was consistent with their own programs.

34. Hi, I have a conflicting obligation on Tuesday, but I do feel strongly about bringing ROTC back to Columbia. As a fairly liberal individual opposed both to the war and to Columbia's history of, shall we say, intimate involvement with the US military, I find it embarrassing that we do not have ROTC on campus. The presence of ROTC does not inherently oppress any reasonable person, and continued opposition to bringing ROTC back to CU unfairly penalizes individuals who are interested in the military. It is also unfair to students who may need military scholarship money in order to afford going to school here. I'm not really all that well-versed in the matter, I just feel that the knee-jerk opposition to ROTC here is disrespectful... yeah. My brother is a Marine, he's getting deployed to Iraq in two or three weeks. A lot of how I feel about the individuals in our military is based on that. This university owes them some amount of support.

35. My opinion is NO. Columbia should stay dedicated exclusively to academic and
research excellence outside of direct political and military direct involvement. Aside from attracting some funds and providing aid for some students, the moral cost could be high, plus there could be other sources to fund students that otherwise would choose the ROTC to pay for their studies.

36. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

37. I think it is pretty interesting. I don't see a big problem with having ROTC on campus. It's weird timing given our situation—currently at war—but I think it could be good.

38. No

39. Yea, CU should most definitely invite an organization that discriminates against gay people to recruit on campus....that'll show them!

40. Dear Task Force:
This is worth having a meeting over (although I will leave town that day); I would like to add that it would be useful to know more detailed experiences of other high-caliber universities who currently have ROTC on their campus. MIT and Princeton were mentioned in the "The proposal to restore ROTC", and that was helpful; is there more info you can provide? I am sure many students/faculty here at Columbia would like to know, for example: (1) Is Columbia the only Ivy League (or elite") university to discontinue ROTC in the 1960's? If not, did some of them bring it back and if so how is it working out? (2) How is the current situation in Iraq affecting the ROTC on campuses?

41. Who cares?

42. Dear University Senate:
Columbia University has a tremendous opportunity to influence generations of America's military officers by bringing Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) units back to campus and including ROTC training as an integral part of a Columbia education. While there may be opponents to the general idea of a military force in America, this sentiment is naïve and unrealistic. Citizens ( I amplify, AMERICAN CITIZENS) who feel the need to emphasize our historical commitment to civilian control over our military and military policy should embrace the opportunity to train a portion of this military leadership by having as many future and current military officers on our University's campuses. Isolating our military's future and current leaders from a broad range of ideas is not a prudent education environment if America truly wants a learned and educated, citizen-soldier officer cadre for our nation's military. The University, including its undergraduate AND graduate students, can also economically benefit from having ROTC units on campus. There are Columbia and Barnard students who are ROTC scholarship cadets. These students conserve institutional financial aid resources and give Columbia and Barnard greater flexibility to provide economic aid to a broader base of students. Having ROTC on campus may mean significantly greater ROTC scholarship opportunities for Columbia and Barnard students; NOT JUST for scholarship cadets and midshipmen, but all students who need financial aid. In rough numbers, having Army and Navy ROTC units on the Columbia campus could mean as many as 129 more Columbia and Barnard students who would receive financial aid grants of $20,000 per year. Put another way, having Army and ROTC units on campus could translate into more than 250 grants-in-aid of $10,000 per grant. Those are tremendous opportunities for students who are NOT connected at all to a ROTC program. I particularly encourage the University to invite both Army and Navy ROTC units to campus. Columbia has a long history of Navy ROTC at the University. A recent obituary for entertainer Johnny Carson noted he trained on the Columbia campus in preparation to receive his Naval officer's commission. Columbia and the Navy make a logical fit. With the exception of SUNY-Maritime College, there is no Navy ROTC unit within 2 hours of Manhattan. The closest Navy ROTC unit to Morningside Heights is located at the University of Pennsylvania. Other Navy ROTC units in eastern New York State, New Jersey, or Connecticut are located at Cornell University and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Additionally, Columbia-Barnard offers one of the broadest ranges of academic disciplines of New York City universities. Please note the University's robust Nursing School at the Health Sciences campus, along with Physician & Surgeons students, who are Armed Forces Health Services Scholarship recipients. Some of these students are either candidates or current scholarship cadets or midshipmen. Many Columbia and Barnard students, faculty, and staff encourage the notion of national service. ROTC training prepares young people to assume positions of leadership in national service. The ability to influence and educate generations of military officers and the opportunities to acquire training for national service and leadership and financial aid for students are compelling reasons to have ROTC on the Columbia campus.

43. Dear Task Force,
I’d like to provide some personal testimonial about the value of serving (recently) in the military as a Columbia graduate. I’d also like to mention two issues that were overlooked by pro- and anti-ROTC speakers at last week’s Town Hall, but which were alluded to by the Task Force in its opening remarks. The first issue revolves around Columbia’s interest, as a fountain of intellectual thought, in playing an active role in the composition, role, and leadership of this nation’s military. The second point, which was almost broached during discussion of officer commissioning sources, is about granting equal opportunity for Columbia students who want to pursue a military career, rather than sidelining that population to uncover the far more arduous paths to serving in the military as a Columbia graduate. I won’t expound upon those further here – I just wanted to register those ideas for the Task Force’s consideration. I graduated SEAS ’92, attending Army ROTC through Fordham University for all four years of my undergraduate education here. The commute to midtown was time-consuming and probably degraded my academic performance in my Columbia courses. I went to Berkeley immediately after graduation and earned a Master’s of Engineering (it is possible to earn an advanced degree, despite the lament of one speaker’s biology roommate at the Town Hall) before spending six years on active duty, which I found both physically and intellectually challenging and rewarding.

Although I know other Ivy League ROTC students who later served in the military, I never actually met any while on Active Duty. On a philosophical level, this is a shame for it suggests that a certain socio-academic segment of our population is absent from our military institutions. On a practical level, this is a shame because of the growing gap of understanding and common experience between our military and the society it defends and represents. Cocktail conversations are easy for me, because my experiences often fuel the only firsthand accounts of the military for many I speak to. To those who question why it’s desirable for Columbians to enter the military, I can point to a number of situations where I feel that my Columbia education was directly responsible for professional achievements in the military. As an officer in the Army Corps of Engineers last year, I had a series of incredibly thought-provoking meetings with the USAID Mission Director in Kabul regarding the future of that country and our role in its reconstruction. Those discussions, which touched upon subjects ranging from macroeconomics to political science to engineering, helped bridge a very adversarial relationship between the military and the State Department. Within six months, we had finished a critical highway construction project that neither of our organizations could have completed alone. I have also performed more traditional military duties, such as training for a minefield breach or conducting an assault. But I have also worked on humanitarian aid projects; helped build self-sustaining government institutions; negotiated and managed multi-million-dollar construction projects; accrued professional engineering qualifications; and made friends in far-flung countries. I also learned to be an effective manager, to work through ethical dilemmas, to know when to make split-second decisions and when to seek more information first. These military experiences were invaluable in my civilian career as a management consultant. In turn, many skills I learned in the private sector – from database programming to process-flow analysis – served me well when I returned to Active Duty in 2003. These are the skill sets and experiences that today’s military officers can expect to gain. It would be presumptuous of me to extrapolate my experience to that of future Columbia ROTC graduates. However, I can at least claim first-hand knowledge of a military experience, and I know my peer officers and to some degree how to effect changes in methods or thought amongst them and my soldiers. A recent Spectator article (A. Rosenthal, “ROTC, you are (still) not wanted here,” 16 Feb) underscores a significant peril of excluding ROTC from our community. He admits that he “cannot understand why anyone would want to be in the military at this juncture in American history.” Such ignorance – the source of fear among many anti-ROTC protesters I’ve heard – is exactly why we need to close the social gap between institutions like Columbia and our military by opening more opportunities for dialogue and participation.

44. Dear Task Force,
I cannot make the meeting on the 15th but would like to voice a strong objection, for reasons that will be made clear in a statement in the future, to the reintroduction of ROTC to Columbia.

45. Dear ROTC -taskforce,
I am very opposed to the presence of ROTC on campus.

46. To whom it may concern:
I think it would send a wonderful message for Columbia to reinstate its ROTC program. Although the administration of Columbia is unabashedly liberal, anti-military, and anti-Republican, it should not be anti-free speech and free association. The school's intolerance of conservatism, and even patriotism, is an affront to free thinking. Moreover, snubbing those who might wish to pay for their education by serving their country seems an anathema to liberal values. Thank for considering this change in policy and my views on the subject.

47. Just a quick reply,
In a word, NO! I am an African-American gay man, a journalist, a public health worker and twice a graduate of Columbia (BA in 1986, MPH in 2004). The military, with its homophobic traditions, its current don't ask, don't tell policy (which has led to more dismissals of gay servicemembers than ever) should not be allowed back to recruit at Columbia. I currently reside in California, but will gladly come to New York to express my views on this. Please let me know of any additional forums in the future to which I might fit my schedule. Thanks for soliciting university opinion on this potentially divisive issue. Why Columbia would choose to do this at a time when the military is wasting billions of dollars on wars, kickback deals with corporations tied to the Bush administration, and, with its history of blatant bigotry toward gays and lesbians and bisexuals, is very difficult for me to comprehend. Thanks for reading though.

48. No space should be allocated to ROTC. The military usurps enough resources from this country and its people. Especially now, we should not give any resources to the Pentagon, when it is obvious it is doing everything it can to get more cannon fodder for
its quagmire in Iraq, ultimately for the benefit of US corporations. Additionally, the arguments put forward in the proposal and their rebuttals are almost insulting. To
assume that Columbia is merely a bunch of "intellectual elitists" is insulting. That said, no, the military deserves no place on campus not because I would reject "another viewpoint." The military deserves no place because we are a campus of learning, not strategic imperatives. We do not educate ourselves to kill at the university, we don't educate ultimately for destruction of other societies. We learn for the sake of knowledge and the betterment of human society. Not for death, destruction and corporate cronies. Keep ROTC the hell off campus!

49. Dear Task Force Members:
I am strongly supportive of the readmission of ROTC to the Columbia Community.

* The US military has a long and very distinguished history of being an important positive force in the scientific or intellectual and social aspects of the United States.

* It is also an institution which is composed of all elements of the US community, including all races and religious outlooks.

*While the views of many in today's armed services may not be in accord with many of the community, they are views of many in the US and should be represented on campus to give students a balanced perspective on their world.

*Many recent military officers and men have major contributions to our current world –including Gen Shinseki, Gen Powell, and countless other enlisted men and women. They deserve to be seen on campus and to have their views and ideas expressed.

50. Dear Members of the Task Force,
I would like to offer you my perspective on the ROTC issue, both as a longstanding member of the Columbia community and a Marine Corps officer candidate. I have lived in Morningside Heights for over 15 years, my father was GSAS '89, my uncle GSAS '92, my mother has been a Columbia employee for close to 20 years, and I have been taking classes here since my sophomore year of high school. I am currently in the class of 2006 of the College. I chose Columbia over other schools largely for financial reasons, due to the tuition benefit I receive through my mother. Ironically, it's those financial reasons that barred me from entering ROTC in the first place, as Columbia did not have any on-campus ROTC programs, and I could not afford to take the time from my part-time jobs to participate at another campus. I am split between two worlds. I entered Columbia with two aspirations: to become a professor of mathematics, and to serve my country as a military officer. The two are rather incompatible. I spent five semesters pursuing the former. This winter, I decided that the latter is more important to me, and I am now participating in the Marine Corps PLC program. Were there a Navy ROTC program at Columbia, I would be in it. I spend my Fridays training downtown at the Intrepid. The commute precludes me from working Fridays (a loss of a fifth of my income), from attending recitations, and from the Math department seminars, the bulk of which occur on Friday. And I don't have the additional academic obligations that ROTC cadets have.

My experiences as an aspiring mathematician and as an aspiring officer have been markedly different. As an aspiring mathematician, I have received nothing but support and encouragement from the University and its faculty. There is an undergraduate society for such students, and the Rabi Scholars program has guaranteed me research funding throughout my undergraduate years. However, as an aspiring Marine Officer, it's as though I don't exist. While there are pre-professional programs and events sponsored by the Class Centers and CCE for all sorts of post-graduation career paths (law, medicine, finance, activism, education, to name a few), ROTC is notably absent. I spend my Fridays off-campus because Columbia makes no effort to accommodate those students wishing to enter military service. After the 2004 election, the Spectator staff editorial observed that the disbelief many on campus felt was a result of a disconnect between the campus and the "red states." They concluded that by refusing to hear the Right or engaging the Right in dialogue, the undergraduate body saw this half of America merely through their own distorted caricatures. A similar thing is happening with the campus and the military. With ROTC excluded for close to four decades, many students have no exposure to members of the military or the sorts of individuals that would devote themselves to military service. Comments by opponents of ROTC, both last night at the town hall meeting and in their own articles, betray a vast ignorance of the military. They claim we're taught only to follow orders, like automatons. That is only half the truth. Anyone can follow orders—most jobs require you to answer to a superior. But what distinguishes the officer corps is that we're taught to and entrusted by the President to GIVE orders. To lead. Inc. Magazine described Marine Corps officer training as the finest leadership training in the world. Leadership requires intelligent, motivated people, the very sort that Columbia graduates. By discouraging potential ROTC cadets from attending Columbia, this ignorance is perpetuated by the ban on ROTC. Atrocities like My Lai and Abu Ghraib are not products of the military culture; I would not enter an organization that engenders such behavior. They are failures of leadership. I have faith in my fellow Columbia students, based on their having earned a place here, and on their Columbia education, to be better equipped to prevent such atrocities. That Columbia would stand in the way of its students pursuing military service is a disgrace and a disservice to this country.

As I see it, there are two primary reasons given for opposing the return of ROTC to campus. The first is a based on a general dislike of the military, the same reason given in '68 for its removal in the first place. This rationale is simply bunk. That a vocal minority takes offense to the presence of cadets and recruiters on campus is no more reason to remove them than my distaste for a political group would be a reason to remove them or revoke their funding. If disassociation from the military were a legitimate argument, then the University should be equally as quick to revoke all Defense Department grants for our physics, CS, engineering, and medical programs. The second reason is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the military, introduced in 1993 by the civilian Commander in Chief at the time, President Clinton. I concede this is a legitimate concern. But you must consider how best to change this policy, and if banning ROTC fits into such a strategy. The ban of ROTC, for the military, means it will draw 48 cadets from a university other than Columbia. This is not exactly rattling the doors in the Pentagon. It will not change DADT. Were the University serious about changing DADT, the refusal to conduct research for the DoD would be far more serious leverage and would stand to effect some change. But as it stands, the ban on ROTC is nothing more than a symbolic gesture that hurts cadets and the university and helps no one. For that reason, I urge you to overturn the ban on ROTC.

51. I am sorry that I won’t be at the open hearing but I wanted to share my opinion. By way of background I am a Vietnam-era graduate of a four-year Army ROTC program. I am a bit suspicious of the April ‘03 student survey as an accurate reflection of current student sentiment given that it was administered at the moment when Americans were most enthusiastic about the Iraqi war. That much said, I want to lend my support to the proposal that we have ROTC on campus. Since the nation shifted to all-volunteer armed forces, the military looks less and less like the general population at large. That is dangerous for a democracy. It is important that we have officers that come from a far wider swath of society, and especially Ivy League-caliber schools. ROTC is an important avenue for that to occur. As a hard-core academic, I too jealously guard the way in which we dispense academic titles. But it seems to me that the Princeton solution is a good way to solve this problem.

52. I'm a doctoral student in Sociology and Education at TC. Unfortunately, I just learned of tonight's meeting but will be unable to attend. I'm an enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve and served in Iraq for most of 2003. I would strongly encourage you to restore ROTC to Columbia. It seems to me that a Columbia University education is exactly the right preparation for military leaders. I would be happy to talk with the task force if there are future public meetings.

53. Task Force:
Thank you for holding the community forum. I have 4 things.

1. The CCSC referendum was worded and authored by a man named X. X is gay and does not support ROTC. He is CC '03. The referendum said that CC students support the return of ROTC 2 to 1. Over 60% of students cast ballots.

2. After college one may enter OTS or OCS (Officer Training/candidacy School). However, they are only accepting technical majors as this time - and a small number of them, period. This applies to Navy and Air Force—I am unaware of Army policies.

3. I think the timer is a good idea next time.

4. I must protest allowing a Spectator photographer and a Barnard cameraperson to cover the event while prohibiting CTV. I told Tom M. about the BC camera girl sitting in the second row before the event started. He spoke to her—but she continued to film the whole event unchecked. Tom said he was too busy to stop her during the event. I feel as if I have been discriminated against and I request an explanation for why I was the only media outlet excluded from this event. I was going to publicize this event so that more members of the community would take the time to weigh in on it. Now that cannot happen.