Reserve Officer Training Corps: After Semester of Debate, ROTC To Stay Off Campus

After a semester of town hall meetings, open forums, and discussions by a special University Senate task force, the latest round in the ROTC debate came to a close last Friday when the Senate rejected once and for all a proposal to return the program to campus.

The debate over whether or not to allow the ROTC back on campus has spanned nearly 40 years, beginning in the Vietnam era with the expulsion of the Navy Reserve Officers Training Corps from campus in 1969. Since then, the issue has periodically come to the forefront of student debate, last surfacing for a vote by the Senate in 1976.

However, last spring, the issue of ROTC again caused a stir on campus, after a proposal to bring the ROTC back was put forth by the student groups Columbia Advocates for ROTC and Students United for America. In response, the Senate created a special task force to study the issue.

During the semester, the committee debated many issues, among them whether the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is against Columbia's policy of non-discrimination. When the task force failed to come to a decision, the Senate Executive Committee brought the issue to the floor for a vote. At its last meeting of the year on Friday the Senate voted, 53-10 with five abstentions, to reject the return of ROTC to campus. However, the proponents of ROTC at Columbia say they will continue to work to bring the program back.

This Year's Debate

In 1969, the reasons for rejecting ROTC from campus were based primarily on anti-military sentiment. This time around, the sticking point was the U.S. armed forces' controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from serving in the military. Because the University's non-discrimination policy includes a clause about sexual orientation, Columbia would officially have to make a special exemption to the policy in order to allow an ROTC program on campus; it has been forced to do this to allow military recruiters under the Solomon Amendment.

For pro-ROTC advocates on campus, bringing the ROTC back will allow more Columbians to get involved with the military in an attempt to affect change from within. "The U.S. and the world are far better off if the people who run the military are the best educated that they can be," said Professor of Astronomy and Task Force Co-Chair James Applegate.

But those in the anti-ROTC camp disagreed. "Although I find the rhetoric 'we agree with you in principle, we disagree on matters of strategy and tactics' not utterly implausible, I keep hearing the voice of my grandmother, who would say actions indeed do speak louder than words," Nash Professor of Law and Task Force Member Kendall Thomas said at a special meeting of the Senate to discuss ROTC on April 15.

Many students and faculty also expressed discomfort with such an overt militaristic presence on campus. "I don't think the University is the right place for recruiting and giving credit to training how to be a warrior of the state," said film professor Lewis Cole, who worked to remove ROTC from campus in 1969.

These sentiments were echoed by many at a town hall meeting organized by the Senate task force in February. "My objection to the ROTC is primarily based on the role of the military in general," said Quincy Lehr, a graduate student in the department of history.

Columbia Advocates for ROTC and Students United for America argue that bringing back ROTC would increase diversity on campus because it would provide scholarships to the economically disadvantaged.

But not all students bought that argument. "The ROTC advocates make some compelling argument in terms of broadening financial aid, but if Columbia were serious about doing that they should be thinking about switching to grants over loans, not putting in a policy that's fundamentally discriminatory," said Nate Treadwell, CC '05, earlier this semester. The task force also discussed academic issues surrounding ROTC, including credit, titles for instructors, and classroom space.

But ultimately, all other arguments took a back seat to objections to "don't ask, don't tell." At Friday's Senate meeting Provost Alan Brinkley, speaking for himself and not for the administration, drew a link between this policy and other forms of discrimination. "We are weighing two social goods--one social good is presumably strengthening the military by our presence in it ... the other social good is defending our own principles," Brinkley said. "Are these two social goods equal? I believe they're not. One is ... a practical good, one is a moral good." Brinkley questioned whether the same consideration would be given to a group that allowed African-Americans to participate if they "passed" as white or women to participate if they pretended to be men.

Action in the University Senate

Last Spring a task force, composed of five faculty members, four students, and one alumnus of the Law School, and was created after some debate to develop a recommendation to the Senate for voting. At the Senate's first meeting this semester, Applegate said that the 10- member task force had "not come to a consensus on anything, nor [had they] tried to."

"Our desire is to educated ourselves and come to a consensus in the weeks to come," he added.

However, when the task force presented its final report to the Senate in April it revealed that it was split evenly, with a vote of 5-5, on whether or not to immediately return ROTC to Columbia. "I am afraid that we have failed you," task force co-chair Nathan Walker, UTS '05 and TC '08, told the Senate before the general body vote last Friday.

It seemed that the task force had found a middle ground on this issue when it ended its discussion and voted in April. While the group was divided on whether to immediately return ROTC, it voted 9-0, with one abstention, "in favor of returning ROTC if there is no longer discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual service members in the military." But it soon became clear that the various task force members had interpreted the word "if" in this clause differently; those who had voted to immediately return ROTC read it as implying a hypothetical situation, while those who had voted against immediately bringing back the program thought it meant "if and only if."

At the suggestion on task force member, Peter Woodin, Law '88, the wording was changed to "in the event that." Woodin then changed his vote to be in favor of this proposal, so that the task force ultimately decided, 6-4, to present a resolution to the Senate stating, "In the event that gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers are permitted to serve openly in the military, Columbia should establish an on-campus ROTC program."

However, the Senate's executive committee--a permanent committee made up of University President Lee Bollinger, Brinkley, and other senior Senate members--objected to this resolution because it was somewhat ambiguous and committed the Senate to a course of action based on hypothetical future conditions.

"The resolution should be a resolution that is clear, unambiguous, and that people will vote if they are for or against. We have to take our responsibility and make a decision," said Paul Duby, chair of the executive committee and professor of earth and environmental engineering, on Friday.

Some senators disagreed, arguing that any vote on the topic would be a "red flag" to the Department of Defense, which could try to withhold federal funds from the school under the provisions of the contested Solomon Amendment. This federal legislation allows the government to withhold funds from a university if one part of that school refuses to allow military recruiters access to its students. While the Amendment is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court, has only been used to force schools to allow military recruiters on campus, it does include a provision concerning ROTC.

"The wisest course for the University to take would be to table this issue because it is a provocation" to the Department of Defense, said John C. Dalton Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics Samuel Silverstein. Other senators disagreed, however, and two subsequent motions to table the resolution and two amendments to restore the condition of bringing back ROTC when the military ends its discrimination were defeated.

It seemed that senators and members of the community in attendance at Friday's meeting--many of whom carried signs denouncing ROTC--were glad that a definite yes/no vote was taken. During one of the votes on tabling on observer called out, "Take a stand: vote it down!" The final decision was greeted by loud applause.

"I'm very proud of Columbia University for maintaining its commitment to its non-discrimination policy," said Walker, who voted against bringing back ROTC. "It was good just to have an up/ down vote and I trust that in the future, when the mil's discriminatory policies cease, that Columbia will affirm ROTC on campus."

A Future for ROTC at Columbia?

For now, students will be able to continue to attend the army ROTC program hosted at Fordham University and the air force ROTC program at Manhattan College, which currently includes four and five Columbia undergraduates, respectively. These students are eligible to receive up to $17,000 through the Fordham program and $30,000 through the ROTC at Manhattan College per year in funding from the military. However, some site the proximity of other ROTC programs as an argument against returning ROTC to campus.

At Friday's meeting, the administration noted, "We in the central administration took the position that this is something that should arise out of the community," Bollinger said. "It is appropriate that the Senate should be the body ... that comes to some sort of conclusion." Several administrators were present for the voting, including Brinkley, who abstained from voting and Bollinger, who voted against bringing back ROTC.

Either way, the Senate's decision is non-binding; however Walker said that there was no chance the Trustees would consider the issue following this negative vote.

Sean Wilkes, CC '06, president of Columbia Advocates for ROTC, and a ROTC cadet through Fordham, said that his group would continue to work toward bringing the program back to campus. "I think we're going to reorganize and try to figure out what else is possible from this point on," Wilkes said. "We haven't had time to reorganize but I'm sure we'll continue working toward this."

"Columbia should do everything it can to provide information, access, etc., to those students who want this," Wilkes said. "We presented a solution to what we see as a problem and the University said no to it so now I'm open to suggestions. ... I'd like to know what the University wants to do to help mend this gap."