HOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES MISLED ON ROTC AND CAMPUS RECRUITING

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

JOHN K. WILSON, INSIDE HIGHEER ED, 2007 - The Solomon Amendment
prohibits a college from receiving federal funds if it bans military
recruiters, prevents the military "from maintaining, establishing, or
operating" an ROTC unit at that college or prohibits a student from
enrolling at an ROTC unit at another college.

But what does it mean to establish an ROTC unit? For example, no college
prohibits any students from enrolling in ROTC at another college.
Likewise, to my knowledge, there is no college that has actually banned
the military from renting space on campus like any other group and
holding ROTC training sessions. The proposed rule explicitly rejects the
concept of equal treatment; instead, the military is demanding special
rights to control curriculum and faculty that no other outside group is
ever granted.

It's common to refer to campuses "banning" ROTC, but it apparently never
happened. For example, in 1969, Yale University never "abolished" ROTC;
it simply denied ROTC academic credit and faculty rank, and the military
chose to withdraw under these conditions. In 1970, Stanford's Faculty
Senate voted to end academic credit for ROTC courses because the courses
were not open to all Stanford students, and the military (instead of
Stanford) chose the teachers.

The proposed rule not only prevents a college from prohibiting ROTC, but
also bans a campus from doing anything that "in effect prevents" an ROTC
unit from operating. This would include neutral rules applied to
everyone on campus, such as nondiscrimination rules, faculty control
over the curriculum, or academic freedom. According to the proposed
rule, "The criterion of 'efficiently operating a Senior ROTC unit'
refers generally to an expectation that the ROTC Department would be
treated on a par with other academic departments." Since in other
academic departments, professors are given faculty rank and students
receive college credit, this provision would effectively revoke faculty
and campus control over the curriculum. It appears likely that the
military will demand academic credit for ROTC classes (including those
held at other campuses) and faculty rank for instructors who are
selected and controlled by the military. Yet there is nothing in the
Solomon Amendment to require this.

If colleges allow students in ROTC classes to receive credit, they
should be careful to impose the same conditions offered for all other
classes: the faculty must be appointed by the college, not the military;
the faculty, not the military, must determine the content of the
classes; and all qualified students, regardless of sexual orientation or
enrollment in the military, should be able to take the class. Nothing in
the Solomon Amendment reverses these common rules, and if it did so, it
would be unconstitutional, as this proposed rule is. . .

The military seems unwilling to give up control over the selection of
ROTC faculty and the curriculum. The choice of faculty and content for
courses must remain the authority of faculty at each campus, and not be
handed over to the government. Decisions on whether a particular
department or course is legitimate must be determined by the faculty,
not by a government fiat.

Nor should military recruiters be exempt from protest or criticism. The
proposed rule makes it a violation if the college "has failed to enforce
time, place, and manner policies established by the covered school such
that the military recruiters experience an inferior or unsafe recruiting
climate, as schools must allow military recruiters on campus and must
assist them in whatever way the school assists other employers."

It is essentially impossible for any college to prohibit an "inferior
... recruiting climate" for military recruiters without banning all such
protests. . .
http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/06/25/wilson

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||