Columbia’s controversial ban on Reserve Officer Training Corps’ presence on campus has re-entered the spotlight this semester as some student leaders have launched a renewed effort to reconsider the policy. But lost in the debate is one important fact—the power to revisit that policy is out of the hands of the undergraduate student councils, as well as student groups.
Any serious push must start with the University Senate—in its advisory role to the Board of Trustees—where the 40-year-old policy has periodically come under review with the same result each time.
The issue last made news in 2005 when the University Senate upheld the campus ban by a vote of 53-10, with five abstentions and 13 senators absent. The ban began in the 1960s as a show of opposition to the Vietnam War and has been affirmed in more recent years because many in the University believe the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy runs contrary Columbia’s non-discrimination policy on sexual orientation.
The senate spent nearly a year on this issue during the 2004-2005 academic year, even creating a special task force on ROTC to research the issue. In April 2005, the senate held a meeting specifically devoted to the ROTC issue. Participants in those debates said that should the issue become prominent in terms of a policy-changing discussion, the senate will again be the institution to re-examine the issue.
“If it is to be reconsidered, the senate is the appropriate place to do it,” said James Applegate, a professor of astronomy who served as co-chair of the task force.
Then, like now, there were advocates for bringing ROTC back to campus. The driving force behind the 2005 movement to invite the military back to campus was Advocates for Columbia ROTC, a student group led by Sean Wilkes, CC ’06. This year, Engineering Student Council representatives have raised the prospect of a return of the Naval ROTC because there is no program at a Manhattan university where students can participate in that sect of the corps. Under the policy, students who wish to can participate in ROTC programs at other New York City schools.
According to Applegate, the “no” votes in 2005 largely cited “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” while people who were in favor of repealing the ban believed that a compromise could be reached. Even those for ROTC were against DADT, he said.
“There is absolutely no doubt that it is a violation of Columbia’s anti-discrimination policy,” he said.
But Applegate also added, “The real question of what is the appropriate role of the University in educating the armed forces never got out.” He said he hopes that if the issue is brought to the University Senate again, the scope of the debate will include this idea.
The question remains, however, whether or not the issue will be brought to the senate this year. One reason that it might not gain traction is that while it is a hot button topic among undergraduates, it is less important to graduate students. The University Senate is comprised of representatives of students, faculty, staff, and administrators at each of Columbia’s undergraduate and graduate schools.
“If it is brought to us by the students then we will address it,” said Genevieve Thornton, a student senator from the Business School and co-chair of the students’ caucus. But she added that it is currently a mostly undergraduate-centered concern: “It’s just not a hot-button issue among the grad schools.”
Faculty, staff, and administrators who remember the recent 2005 debate on the same topic may also balk at any revisitation.
“The problem is that the students are around for four years and the faculty are around for 40 years,” Applegate said. “This is a new thing for students, and faculty are saying, ‘Hey, we did this yesterday.’”
“As far as the senate is concerned, we are waiting to see what happens [with the students],” said Paul Duby, co-chair of the University Senate Executive Committee, at Friday’s senate meeting.
