Last week I wrote this about the future of ROTC on many college campuses which had banned it following the passage of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:
Will we be seeing ROTC and on-campus recruiting re-established at all the schools who banned it in the wake of DADT now that DADT is going away? I doubt it, as the leadership of many of those schools had probably been waiting for a reason to pull the trigger and DADT was merely a good excuse.
And a commenter added:
This reminds me of something I read on John T. Reed’s blog a while ago;
“The most delicious aspect of ending the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” would be forcing the colleges and universities who ban ROTC and military recruiters to admit their real agenda: they just hate the military. As long as the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy exists, the academics can cite that as their reason for banning the military.”
That alone makes the lifting of DADT worth it!
And now we have this by Colman McCarthy in the Washington Post:
It should not be forgotten that schools have legitimate and moral reasons for keeping the military at bay, regardless of the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” They can stand with those who for reasons of conscience reject military solutions to conflicts.
ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex. [emphasis Murdoc's]
Taints the intellectual purity of a school. According to an admitted opponent of ROTC.
As I wrote earlier, I think that the military and American society in general could benefit a little by the return of ROTC to some of these campuses. But if the only real result is going to be the open admission that DADT was not the real reason for banning it in the first place, that will at least be fun to watch.