![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)
![[dot]](/archives/cmdot.gif){kind=small}
January 16, 2008
![[feather]](/archives/feather.gif){kind=small}
Solomon and Sound Bites
Last night, Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama debated one another in Nevada--and took some interesting questions about ROTC from MSNBC's Tim Russert. Russert asked each presidential candidate whether they would enforce the Solomon Amendment--and each said yes, but then hurriedly changed the subject. Obama spoke about his national service program. Edwards talked about homeless veterans.
Russert got furthest with Clinton. "There's a federal statute on the books which says that, if a college or university does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students, it can lose its federal funding," he asked. "Will you vigorously enforce that statute?"
"Yes, I will," she replied, quickly shifting to a discussion of a new G.I. bill for veterans and her work on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Circling back around to the subject of ROTC, she concluded on a note that gave Russert an interesting opening: "I think that everyone should make available an opportunity for a young man or woman to be in ROTC, to be able to join the military and I'm going to do everything I can to support the men and women in the military and their families," she said.
Russert responded by pressing Clinton on the question of availability: "Of the top 10 rated schools, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, they do not have ROTC programs on campus. Should they?"
Russert's question is a pressing one--but Clinton sidestepped it: "Well, there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation. But they should certainly not do anything that either undermines or disrespects the young men and women who wish to pursue a military career."
There certainly are ways they can work out "fulfilling that obligation." But it's questionable whether they are--and it's also arguably the case that these schools are doing plenty to "undermine" and "disprespect" students "who wish to pursue a military career." Harvard students who wish to do ROTC must travel to MIT--and can only train there thanks to the good will of anonymous alumni who pay the six figure fee MIT requires. Harvard's faculty has refused to pay it for years now, as a protest against "don't ask, don't tell." Yale fought a five-year court battle to keep the military off campus (and finally lost last fall). Columbia recently refused to restore ROTC to campus, despite a student referendum overwhelmingly supporting such a move--and the reasons had to do with faculty distaste for DADT. Stanford students have an untenably long commute to ROTC programs at other campuses--and Stanford's law school has come under fire for subjecting students wishing to interview for military jobs to some unusually unpleasant treatment. None of these schools grants course credit to students enrolled in ROTC--a circumstance that has historically posed a hardship for cadets.
It was good to see ROTC raised in the debate, though it would have been better to see the issue explored more thoroughly. The candidates' glib sound bites belied the seriousness of the subject they were asked to address, and their assurances that they would enforce Solomon lacked the credibility they would have gained had those assurances been accompanied by more knowledgeable, relevant responses.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1379
Comments:
Whether these Democratic candidates,if elected, will actually honor their hasty,"let's-move-on" pledges to enforce the Solomon Amendment remains to be seen; I'm skeptical.
Not sure ROTC presence on college campuses is really a pressing national concern.
If the above-mentioned universities are defunded due to non-compliance with the Solomon Amendment,I think I can already hear their administrators' and faculties' howls and whines of protest from Palo Alto to New Haven.
Enforcement of compliance is a key test of whether the major Democratic presidential contenders actually do support military service as an honorable career worthy of attention to training and recruitment on college campuses (heads up, Senator Kerry!). And, in any case, that they will honor their campaign pledges.
Not sure ROTC presence on college campuses is really a pressing national concern.
Yeah, it's not like there's a war on, or a social gap between the people sent to fight it and the people who run the country.
CC: Not sure what a "social gap" between soldiers and politicians has to do with the question put to the Democratic candidates on the Solomon amendment, unless to second Senator Kerry's unwise speculations before college audiences about the social and educational levels of our soldiers. A number of our national politicians of both parties (including Kerry) did serve.
Admitting ROTC recruiters on college campuses is not a major part of the war effort. If it were, I imagine the Bush administration would be enforcing the amendment that maybe-future leaders of America are being asked about nearly a year before the actual election.
Each side of this debate is using soldiers as a stick to beat the other side. The Left is using ROTC in an unwise strategy to fight the military's moronic discrimination against gay folk. The Right is using the ROTC in an unwise strategy to fight the last bastion of leftwing thought, the American university.
Neither side is particularly concerned about the grunts on the ground. Or else they'd be concerned about something more than ROTC at Yale.
The Bush Administration had first to win its case against various universities' law schools that argued that enforcement of the Solomon Amendment (allowing the government to withhold funding from schools barring military recruitment) "deprived" them of their first amendment rights to free speech. But the Department of Defense won its case (Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights) two years ago in a unanimous decision by the US Supreme Court. In arguing the government's case, Daniel Polsby, Dean of the George Mason University Law School, argued that the law schools contesting the government's case were merely attempting to conceal their antipathy to the US military behind a smokescreen of deprivation of rights claims.
In the wake of this court case and others, it's quite appropriate that presidential candidates (all potential commanders-in-chief) be queried on issues affecting the military. I agree with Professor O'Connor that the Democratic candidates recently questioned about enforcement of the Solomon Amendment owe a fuller exploration and explanation of their views on the military to our military personnel and voters. Contrary to LB's pedestrian remarks, the issues are much broader than allowing ROTC at Yale, but whether campus anti-military factions shall determine university access for all without consequences.
Post a comment:
