To a substantial extent, the "elite" colleges function as a mechanism for maintaining and increasing barriers to class mobility. This may not be the intent of most faculty members (not so sure about the administrators) but it is the reality. The American military, on the other hand, has for at least the last few decades been an engine of social mobility. So perhaps there is a natural conflict.

I don't really care anymore about the presence of ROTC on campus, provided that no college credit is awarded for non-academic purposes (such as drill practice or firing range or first aid).

But this article is, like so many on both sides of the debate, disingenuous. First, take this doozie of wrongitude: "While it is true that few of the students I taught will ever serve in uniform, part of the reason is that no one has bothered to ask them to." That's patently absurd. Unless much has changed in the fifteen years since I was in high school, students are wooed by the military in public schools for a good thirteen years of their lives. They are wooed on the radio, online, on television, and in films. Find me an American child who hasn't been asked to join the military, and I'll show you a bridge I have to sell.

Then let's consider this bit of faulty reasoning: "At Yale, which has supplied more than its share of senators and presidents, almost none of my former classmates or students ever noticed the absence of uniforms on campus." This implies that the presence of people in military uniforms on college campuses is a natural or common phenomenon, such that someone passing through for four years would feel its absence, like the absence of one's wallet or one's kidneys. There's nothing more than a contingent connection between colleges and the military, so there's no reason a student at Yale would think, "Wow, this place is missing something . . . whatever could it be?"

Third, while blaming Congress for DADT is correct, excusing the military for it is not. While the military cannot change the policy, its key officials and members could put pressure -- loud pressure -- on the DOD to end the policy. The glaring silence of the military on DADT is enough to confirm the suspicion of many of today's students: the military is a discriminatory public organization. So even if students have a fact wrong (e.g., that the Army could end DADT single-handedly), their conclusions are right: the Army as a whole promotes discrimination.

Fourth, I find the article's final appeal to pathos at the end manipulative. Of course, many students do in fact respect the gravity of a young cadet's situation. But that doesn't mean that other students should not be able to oppose the young cadet's decisions (say, to accept that an authority has the right to tell you when you must fight and punish you when your conscience opposes it). I find it odd that conservatives tell single mothers, "You made a choice, now live with it," but we're expected to "Support the soldiers even if we don't support the war."

Last, I think ROTC is a low, low priority right now, not only for President Obama, but also for college administrations.

Luther Bisset (aka Matt) wrote:

First, take this doozie of wrongitude: "While it is true that few of the students I taught will ever serve in uniform, part of the reason is that no one has bothered to ask them to." That's patently absurd. Unless much has changed in the fifteen years since I was in high school, students are wooed by the military in public schools for a good thirteen years of their lives. They are wooed on the radio, online, on television, and in films. (My Emphasis)

Right! For once we can agree!

The purely objective and largely public-supported radio station NPR, the purely objective news-reporting TV stations (CNN, NBC, CNBC, ABC, CBS and PBS) are constantly presenting the military and its leaders in the very best possible light, and through their ever more positive stories on what happened in Iraq during the Bush presidency, actively recruited our young folks to join the military! Right wing shills all, I say!

And films like "Rendition," "Lions for Lambs" and "In the Valley of Elah" definitely glorify the US military and its leaders, too, and are undoubtedly responsible for recruiting thousands of useful idiots to the Bushhitler cause.

Gee . . . I thought I was the only one to see through the vast right wing conspiracy.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat non-plussed that we, you and I, slide seamlessly from our assertion that the media supports the military and recruits people to it, and our implication that our assertion is proved because we, you and I, can say: "Find me an American child who hasn't been asked to join the military, and I'll show you a bridge I have to sell."

I don't think those skeptics who would point out the error in our thinking have a leg to stand on . . . (Even if the media (sensu lato) were entirely anti-military, an American youngster could still be asked to join the military — by, for example, her next door neighbor. Say — I like bridges . . . how much is the one you have to sell?)

minerva, thanks for the lesson on pseudonyms! I'm assuming your real name is a one word, lower-case allusion to the Roman version of the Greek god of cunning and weaving. (Is "minerva" the blog version of "Madonna" and "Prince"? At least my fake name has a fake surname.)

In any case, a careful, or even careless, reading of my post would tell you that at no point do I suggest that "the media" support the military. Only a conscious attempt to misrepresent my words could have led you to this easy Hannity-esque interpretation.

Instead, I say something incontrovertible: kids are wooed by television, films, and radio to join the military. You see, minerva, there are these things called commercials, and they air quite often during television shows, film previews, and radio shows. And somehow, due to the magic of modern life, the Army and Navy and Marines learned to air commercials on the radio, on TV, and before films. Even in magazines. Hotcha!

I'd also love to meet the public school kid who didn't have a military recruiter on his or her campus at some point during the K-12 years. I had to go to pro-military recruitment assemblies every year of my public school education.

So minerva, I'd advise reading before commenting. Unless, of course, you'd like to provide some evidence -- rather than mere snark -- that American children get to college without ever being asked to join the military.