Friends Journal

Challenging a Creepi_
Military Presence
by Katherine van Wonner
This is not a success story. It's an
almost success story, perhaps with
some pointers that can be followed
to good effect.
Disproportionately high numbers of
Quakers are university-connected, with
only a relative few working at Friends
colleges and universities. There are many
Friends meetings in the large university
towns- places like Chapel Hill, Madison,
Iowa City, and Kent (Ohio). Quakers
all across the country, therefore, are probably
affiliated in some way with these
large, often state universities-many of
which have military science programs.
(Over 350 college ROTC programs survived
the cut-backs in 1992.)
What is the objection to such programs?
And what can be done about them? The
first major objection has to do with the
luring of students into the military to be
trained to kill and "die for their country."
The lure is through money and false promises.
Those students most vulnerable are
those in greatest financial need. A systematically-conducted
study published in
Sociology Inquiry indicates, however,
there is no long-term financial benefit
that accrues to ROTC participation. One's
risk of losing life and limb and suffering
from post-traumatic stress disorder were
not measured in this study. These are the
unmentioned costs of participation.
The second major objection-relates to
the academically polluted atmosphere on
campuSes where there's a full-blown military
science program. There will be students
and instructors parading across the
campus in full military uniform. There
will be much publicized military balls
and commissioning ceremonies. More objectionably,
there will be a whole course
curriculum devoted to teaching the skills
of "destroying the enemy." For instance,
contained in the University of Northern
Iowa ROTC course syllabi are the following
activity listings: Feb. 25: Employing
hand grenades. March 11: Nuclear,
biological, cheritical warfare training. The
Katherine van Wormer teaches social work
at the University of Northern Iowa and is a
member of Kent (Ohio) Meeting.
F RIENDS JOURNAL June 1994
location for both is the UNI Dome.
To help recruit students there may be
dramatic helicopter landings on the campus,
posters all over, billboards, and extravagant
library displays. Even a small
military presence at a large university can
dominate the atmosphere.
In order to remove this troublesome
presence, the best approach is to work
within the system to change the system.
Here are the recommended steps:
1. Usually there is an advisory/liaison
committee that links ROTC to the university.
Join this committee. Here you can
gather all the facts for later use. Perhaps
you will be sent to visit classrooms as I
was. Then you can witness firsthand the
violence that is taught. Later you can
speak from a position of authority.
2. Get tenure if you're in a teaching position.
Otherwise you will be eliminated
upon the first action. Among the administrators
at most universities there are colonels
in the reserves. You will be branded
a troublemaker and let go for some other
reason.
3. Get a human rights policy passed giving
gays/lesbians full constitutional rights
at the university. The best chance of removing
the ROTC presence will be
through the gay/lesbian rights arena. The
next big round of battles, according to
national news stories, will involve campus
ROTC programs. Work through local
human rights groups. Help the students
get organized.
4. Introduce a proposal before the university
senate to conduct a campus-wide
referendum to- decide whether or not to
continue to have a military science program.
Invite reporters, including the college
newspaper. The scene will no doubt
be a dramatic one and attract much publicity.
If this resolution fails, have one of
the senators propose an alternative plan
to provide an academic review of the
ROTC curriculum. Even conservative
senators will be distressed at a curriculum
that operates without meeting standards
of academic excellence. This was the
course of events at my university. Areview
is currently underway. Although a
small step, it made the headlines and
opened up much discussion.
5. Use the argument that the obedience/
rote learning themes of military life are
not compatible with the goals of education.
Education means literally "to lead
out." The purpose of higher education is
to help teach students to think for themselves
and to have empathy with those of
diverse cultural backgrounds. ROTC officers
counter with two arguments: The
leadership training produces skills and
confidence, and the product of the ROTC
is a citizen soldier, not a member of a
military elite. Other industrialized nations,
significantly, have not found this kind of
joint military/university arrangement necessary
to preserve democracy.
6 . Be prepared for a huge backlash when
the arguments are made public. There
will be a barrage of letters to the editor.
Letters back and forth on the issue help
keep the issue alive.
7 . The high school Junior ROTC programs
are mushrooming. Because parents
and teachers have not protested, retired
military officers are offering courses
at targeted high schools around the country.
· The pro-military curriculum is provided
by the Department of Defense.
These activities are a part of a massive
public relations effort, which concerned
parents must counter.
With military cut-backs and the issue
of gay/lesbian rights assuming prominence,
the timing is right to question the
creeping military influence in education.
At the high school level there is a very
heavy investment in attracting children to
be future cadets. Parents can do a lot to
curb this activity. The parents of university
students can also express concern at
the military infiltration in admissions and
elsewhere. The success of ROTC and
Junior ROTC can be attributed to 20 years
of silence and apathy. A small vocal opposition
could tum that around. D
19