| OCR Text |
Show i ' - rA - - - . '- R Jim Plehal (at the microphone), NROTC midshipman and Jon VanWagoner (in uniform) spoke in support of ROTC Friday. Committee begins ROTC study; Cadets defend campus military By Dave Nicol Staff Writer Cadet Lt. Colonel Jon Van Wagoner and Midshipman Jim Plehal defended the ROTC program in the Union Ballroom Friday during the final presentation of "Spotlite on the Military." Van Wagoner held that the ROTC is a benefit to the United States. "The public will always demand military professionalism," he said. "Like it or not, our country will always need armed forces and therefore we will need officers. The ROTC is needed to supply this demand." Officers may be needed to quell civil disobedience as well as foreign wars he said. Therefore, they will need a social awareness; an awareness they can gain easier on a college campus than in a military camp. Van Wagoner also defended the continuance of college credit for ROTC. Of the 277 universities in the United States that offer ROTC, only four do not grant credit he said. The averages four year course requires 10.5 hours. A cadet puts in a lot of time and deserves credit for it he added. "ROTC graduates are sought by 40 major corporations after their military careers," said Van Wagoner. "Also, 22 per cent of the men earning over $100,000 are ROTC graduates, as well as 16 per cent of the congressmen, 14 per cent of the ambassadors, and 150 active duty generals." Midshipman Plehal outlined a typical NROTC college course comprised of 30 hours of credit spread across four college years. "Most of the arguments against ROTC are emotional, not academic," he said. "I am embarrassed and appalled at some of our faculty who have not studied the issue academically." He challenged the dissenters to study the ROTC program and then compare it with the programs in their own departments. Plehal rejected as unfounded myths the contentions that ROTC denies freedom of thought and that it follows a single political party line. Each of the candidates in the last election had support from our instructors," he concluded. "Compare this with the political science department where most of the instructors are Democrats." Following the cadet presentation, Jerry Davies, Chairman of Contemporary Affairs, said that "Spotlite on the Military" had been a success. "Especially successful were the ABM debate and the Sound-off," he said. "But the draft resistance lecture and the pro and con ROTC presentations were not far behind." Davies offerred an invitation to anyone having an issue he would like "spotlited" on campus to drop it in his box in the Student Activities Center. By Steve Dieffenbacher Staff Writer A faculty -student Committee to Review ROTC, established at the May 5 Faculty Council meeting, held its first meeting last week to discuss the role of ROTC on campus. The committee members, who were selected by the Executive Committee of the Council upon request of the administration, include eight faculty members and four students representing "all points of view." According to Dr. Milton A. Voigt, chairman, "the committee will review institutional attitudes toward the program, and face all questions which have been raised so far." Voigt went on to say that the committee will study questions involving the status of ROTC at the departmental level. These would include questions of credit and course qualification, through a study of course descriptions, syllabi, and reactions of the students themselves through interviews. All three services now have their own departments within the University, providing the immediate focus of the controversy. Many think that the ROTC should be given the same status as religious groups on campus, said Voigt. "Those groups are referred to as on campus, but they're not really. We don't give them credit for their courses in theology and religion," he said. The broader philosophical question asks if the military is compatible at all with the intellectual climate of free inquiry in a University. "We must face the philosophical question too," said Voigt. "Is there a place for the ROTC on the University campus at all? The question was raised at our first meeting last Wednesday. The committee agreed that it is a question which has to be faced," he said. "Our first meeting was organizational," said Voigt. "We attempted to define ways in which we would pursue the problem, and the kinds of evidence we would seek." However, he mentioned that there was already a difference of opinion on whether the committee had the right to inquire into the character and subject matter of ROTC departments at all. Asked about representation on the committee, Voigt commented, "the committee represents the full spectrum of opinion on the subject. We are confident that what confrontation will take place, will do so within the committes." The committee, in addition to Voigt, includes Bangs Tapscott, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, James L. Clayton, Associate Professor and Director of the Honors Program, Captain Charles W. Smith, Professor of Naval Science, Albert Fisher, Professor and Chairman of the Geography Department, Edwin Firmage, Associate Professor of Law, Mike Mattsson, Military Relations Advisor, and Robert Wolbach, Assistant Professor of Physiology. The student members appointed to the committee were James Bever, SDS chairman; Steve Gunn, former ASUU president; Frank Overfelt, ASUU President and Jim Brinton, Campus Affairs Board. The committee will submit a preliminary report within a few weeks, said Voigt, "on the scope and methods of the study. "We expect to work through the summer and have a full report ready when students reconvene in the fall," he said. "We will give the report to Jerry Andersen, for Faculty Council action." Andersen is the present chairman of the Council. Asked if there was any opposition to the committee so far Voiet answered, "no." |
