Op-Ed
Another Side of ROTC
Email: 
Share: 
“Against gay marriage? Then don’t get one and shut up.” By this standard, often considered the crux of gay rights, no one has the right to impose their moral views on the lives of others, prohibiting retaliation against homosexuals. To activists, this mantra and Cornell’s mantra of “Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds” serve as the paragon of diversity and tolerance. Yet simultaneously, some activists desire retaliation against Cornell ROTC, calling for their removal over moral objections to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prohibits gays from openly serving in the military.
Anyone who blames the ROTC for DADT demonstrates a lack of knowledge about ROTC and the military. When I interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Brian Page of Cornell Army ROTC about his personal opinions on the subject, he drove home the point that the military did not create DADT; it is a federal law. “I don’t get to choose which laws I obey and disobey,” he said. Page also stressed that the military is an apolitical organization. If they wanted to, they could take over the government. So it’s important that they stay out of political battles. For those who remain unconvinced, consider former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace, who called homosexuality immoral. Quoting Gabriel Arana’s column blasting the ROTC, he would have responded, “them’s fightin’ words.” Luckily for Arana, General Pace cannot take him up on his challenge.
The military world differs significantly from the civilian word, justifying some actions in the former due to necessity. “This is not a social organization; it is not a corporate job for hire,” said Lt. Col. Page. One cannot disobey military orders, and soldiers don’t go on strike. I may not be a military expert, but I can safely say that soldiers protesting Army policy would deserve a court-martial and dishonorable discharge for abandoning their colleagues and potentially putting their lives at risk, not a pretty medal for their tireless work promoting social justice. The military can only concern itself with military matters. While Page explained that officers have flexibility in how they enforce DADT, they still cannot openly defy the law. If the law were to change, the military would execute that change, but they should not be the initial agent of change.
On top of this, civilians who call for the removal of the ROTC have little at stake. Page explained that for him, ignoring DADT could potentially result in a court-martial. Yet I doubt his civilian critics would ever face a similar fate. When I asked him how the military would change if every college removed ROTC, he said it would not. This caught me off guard, Page noted that the Constitution requires both an Army and a Navy. Thus, our recruits must come from somewhere, even if that means reinstituting the draft. Not only would replacing trained leaders with draftees give the average student an incentive to keep the ROTC, it would also lessen the quality of the military. And under the Solomon Amendment, kicking out the ROTC would result in a loss of federal funding, affecting groups unconnected to ROTC with no political connections at all. So I ask, does this justify a draft? Does it justify sacrificing national security? Does it justify the collateral damage the loss of federal funding would create? This is the price of blind obedience to social justice.
Such blind obedience also targets the wrong group. According to Page, the power to change DADT lies not in the military but in our elected representatives. He added that officers do not receive a commission until after graduation, at which point one can only blame the federal government for the denial of their ability to serve. As I view it, separation of powers matters not only for the legislative, judicial and executive branch, but it also matters for the civilian and military worlds. In fact, Page had a great analogy on blaming ROTC for DADT: “It’s like blaming a soldier for the Iraq War.”
Furthermore, the military science department, which is inseparable from ROTC, does not discriminate, letting anyone take its classes. In fact, the department has a historic role. “The university has had a military tactics faculty since it was founded and was part of the basis for its founding as a land grant university,” Page said. Not only does this department, which benefits civilians and military alike, not discriminate, but I spoke with a friend in ROTC who described her colleagues not as homophobes but as normal people. Thus, I find it astonishing that some gay rights activists still call for the removal of ROTC from campus. It displays a breathtaking level of closed-mindedness and intolerance towards the ROTC, while at the same time demanding open-mindedness and tolerance towards their views.
Even if it’s just personal opinion, Page and anyone in ROTC have limits on what they can say due to their involvement in the military. However, I am a civilian and have “permission to speak freely.” Cornell ROTC has just as much right to be here as homosexuals, and the values of our university have room for both groups. But if anyone has to be given the boot, it’s the anti-ROTC activists. There is no place at Cornell for their disgraceful attitude towards the military or their hypocritical intolerance.
Mike Wacker is an Assistant Web Editor at The Sun. He can be contacted at mwacker@cornellsun.com
Are you serious?
"This is the price of blind obedience to social justice."
Are you suggesting social justice can be a bad thing?
ROTC: producing leaders for tomorrow. As long as leader is defined as someone who knows how to follow orders without question.
Re: Are you serious?
What do you think happens when people disobey orders in wartime? They (and their comrades) get killed. Our servicemen and -women need to be prepared at all times to go to war, to fight for us civilians so we can continue to bitch about our government without repercussion (as we have the God-given right to do.) Furthermore, the top military leaders need to obey the law without question - if they don't, then we start down the road to being ruled by the military, which is undemocratic. Civil disobedience is one thing - an admirable and sometimes effective way for civilians to change policy. Military disobedience is called a coup d'etat, and we really don't want that.
The ROTC cadets, their commanders, and all servicemen and -women make countless sacrifices for the honor of protecting our asses (including the ungrateful asses); among these sacrifices is the right to actively change civil policy. That's our job, not theirs. So instead of trying to persuade them to shirk their duty, how about you do your duty as a concerned civilian - by writing letters, organizing protests, or even running for office?
You're focusing too much on dichotomies.
Ensuring social justice and generating a strong military are not mutually exclusive. The fact that you don't actually address my point about social justice demonstrates your prejudices in engaging with this argument. You instead speak abstractly about wartime order: criticizing military policy at home does not equal disobeying orders on the ground. Did I mention anything about disobeying wartime orders? No.
It's true that a lot of the criticize of DADT is lobbed against ROTC incorrectly. It should be addressed to higher ups and the Congress. I understand that ROTC members are in no position to openly defy military policy; that those who support LGBT rights are, in many ways, in the closet, too. They aren't the joint chiefs, and they don't have the freedom to openly criticize DADT. However, that doesn't mean they can't do anything. There are plenty of things ROTC cadets can do that engage with DADT, while staying within the limits of military policy. They could undertake the task of conducting a policy analysis, framed in objective terms: numbers, costs, positions that need filled. They could pay more attention to the higher ups that have come out in protest of the policy.
I'll assume that your little parenthetical "ungrateful asses" was directed at me. I do my duty, thank you very much. But that doesn't mean criticism of the ROTC program is entirely unjust; or that ROTC is somehow outside the purview of social criticism. It's most certainly not. It's a fair topic of debate whether Cornell, as an institution that mandates equality, should allow a program that blatantly discriminates against groups to have a presence on campus.
Unrealistic and fantastical
are two terms that I would use to describe your "suggestions."
They could pay more attention to the higher ups that have come out in protest of the policy? What does that even mean... that they'll take their favorite general or admiral out to the park each weekend to play fetch?
And a policy analysis? The federal government and military each likely use thousands of man-hours to perform these... and you want a few ROTC cadets/midshipmen to do it in their spare time while attending an Ivy League University? Plus, any information that they'd have access to is also open to you, so why don't you do it yourself? Oh, because its easier and less time-consuming to complain and then go back to studying/partying (depending on what type of student you are).
As for Cornell hosting a group that discriminates on campus... the school is chock-full of organizations that discriminate one way or another. True, the qualifications may not fall under the amorphous umbrella of "social justice," but discrimination is still present. As for the military's policy, it does not discriminate against gays. The military, and ROTC, cannot simply dismiss someone for being gay. In fact, it is against regulations to inquire about a person's sexuality.
Your fellow students who choose to take part in the ROTC programs are part of a proud heritage of Cornellians. As cadets and midshipmen they have absolutely no input on military policy, and are, in fact, largely prevented from publicly speaking on military policy. The same goes for the active-duty officers and enlisted personnel who are doing their best to bridge the chasm between civilian and military society here at Cornell. They, in the end, serve the elected government of the United States of America, which in turn is determined by the votes of the citizenry.
Criticizing ROTC serves only to boost your ego over your dedication to "social justice." It is a futile act that can only serve to cause divisive conflict on campus.