10 Comments
Sociology Professor Allan Silver forwarded Bwog the following email, which was the impetus for yesterday’s NROTC professor statement of support. “I am simply responding to an item in Bwog mentioning that it is inquiring into the origin of the faculty statement in favor of ROTC. There is no mystery, nothing is concealed, all is transparent,” he said.
Silver said he “didn’t count” how many professors this support-seeking email was sent to, but that “it was sent to people we knew and/or those we had reason to think are in favor of ROTC at Columbia. […] This was not a sample in the statistical sense, so the rate of return, or the percentage agreeing, among those to whom the statement was sent, is not relevant or meaningful.”
Dear Colleagues:
Student initiatives in support of returning an ROTC program to Columbia are culminating in a public debate November 19 and a survey of undergraduate student opinion on November 24. We hope that in this short interval in which to express faculty support for this initiative you can subscribe to the statement below.
It obviously cannot address every relevant nuance, but if you broadly agree, please send your assent to as35@columbia.edu with Subject Line: “ROTC Statement”, if possible by Return. The need for a faculty support group has arisen suddenly and time is of the essence.
Please forward this message to colleagues who might be prepared to support it. The statement follows:
We broadly support the return of ROTC to Columbia University — some of us unconditionally, others if legislation prohibiting military service by open homosexuals is reformed, and/or provision made for faculty control of appointments, curriculum and credit. We all believe, in principle, that an ROTC program at Columbia is an appropriate educational responsibility of this university.
Co-sponsors: Prof. James Applegate, Department of Astronomy
Prof. Allan Silver, Department of Sociology
These links…
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/56819
http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/SilverOct2008.html
… are to recent statements offering some reasons for supporting an ROTC program, and background for the issues.
Loading …
10 Comments
@Uber-Noticer You would be surprised at the number of people who wont commit to supporting ROTC even without DADT or curriculum control. This statement is useful because it shows professors support the idea that military presence is useful in an academic environment. A lot of professors disagree with ROTC on principle, but would rather attack it on DADT than engage the real issue.
The fact that more professor wont sign this statement shows how little sanity there is in the debate against ROTC.
@too bad http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/21/obama-to-delay-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/
@hahah Economy is in the dumps. Crime rate is going to skyrocket. All you idiot transplants from Nowhere, USA are going to be in for a pleasant surprise when your “beloved” “working class” friends start stabbing and shooting. At you.
@Alum They are indeed. Get ready kids!
@hmmm.... the statement covers such a a broad swath that is almost meaningless. it only excludes those who don’t want ROTC under any circumstances. so really it’s only excluding the most stringent anti-ROTC group, which is probably a small group.
BUT, because it is, basically, “in support” of ROTC’s return, and thus in the pro-ROTC camp, it is misleading. Many (including me) who would vote against ROTC’s return may be included in this statement.
@Noticer Yeah, I wondered about that too. Seriously, is there anyone (sane) who opposes the return of ROTC under the condition “if legislation prohibiting military service by open homosexuals is reformed, and/or provision made for faculty control of appointments, curriculum and credit.” For most people, with the exception of a wholly anti-military fringe, support ROTC in the absence of two huge problems:
– DADT
– Curriculum
What is the point of this statement?
@Fringe? If it’s such an anti-military fringe, then why are they featured at every anti-ROTC event and rally? It’s sad because by wrapping them with opposition to DADT, it reduces real opposition to DADT to just another version of anti-military fringe. The CU Dems aren’t fringe yet their statement against ROTC was notable for its broader opposition to ROTC at Columbia.
@Michael Segal The Silver statement on milvets.wordpress.com is the same as the one at http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/SilverOct2008.html, except that the latter has lots of useful hyperlinks.
@Bravo! Prof Silver has a position statement on ROTC at Columbia here: http://milvets.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/rotc-statement-of-professor-silver/
@Bravo! As an alum who was at the 2005 senate vote as a student, I applaud these Columbia professors for taking the principled stand on ROTC at Columbia. The times, they are a-changing.