So the question we must all consider is clear: should we permit the military to have an ROTC presence on campus? The answer will logically depend on what the effects of on-campus ROTC would be and, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be positive overall, whether Stanford’s resources could instead be allocated in ways that would have greater positive overall effects.
Fiat Lux answers these questions, a peek:
Mr. Windley’s next observation, that there exists some resource trade-off in allowing ROTC back, is true only to an insignificant extent. To my knowledge, the military would pay for the trainers, the gear, the development of a curriculum, etc. The real stumbling block to bringing ROTC back is more a question of whether students should receive academic credit, which does not really affect the University’s bottom line. In fact, one could contend that allowing ROTC back would actually be net-positive for the University in terms of resources because it would free up more money for financial aid (because ROTC participants have their tuition paid for by the U.S. government).
What I find most interesting is the last argument of the Op-Ed writer, namely that it would be more efficient for the military to train in a single location rather than at different campus. I find it fascinating. Basically the idea is We don’t want ROTC but if they can be trained elsewhere away from us wouldn’t that be OK?
Or to put it the way I would. As long as equal facilities are available you don’t need to be here. Separate but equal. Now where have I heard this kind of philosophy?
The bottom line is the university in the name of fighting discrimination that was imposed by congress (and not repealed by congress) is discriminating against those who wish to serve their country and have a different political philosophy. Same bigotry different target. I guess history does repeat itself the 2nd time as farce.