Here is a link to a Washington Post item about ROTC on campus-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122903033.html
The author, Colman McCarthy, directs the Center for Teaching Peace. As one would expect, he argues that ROTC should not be allowed on campuses. He specifically makes an example of 'the elite schools', and says that if Harvard allows the ROTC on campus they should put up a sign at the gates saying 'Harvard: a Pentagon annex'.
I see no reason why ROTC should NOT be allowed on a campus. It is a set of values and ideas embodied as an organization. These schools argue loudly against the slightest kind of sexual, ethnic, racial or religious prejudice, and universal tolerance of these defining characteristics. They then argue hypocritically that the values represented by the ROTC are not consistent with school values.
Religions do much the same thing. They preach tolerance, peace and acceptance until it comes to ideas they do not tolerate. Both liberals and religious conservatives thus display the same kind of skewed 'tolerance' only of that which they approve.
I once had lunch with a woman who was co-teaching a church class with me for 13 year olds. She wanted to understand my values, likely a reflection of my frankness with the director of church classes. I had told her I would not be paying anything like strict attention to the nominal curriculum of the course. I had also told the director that I was not interested in creating little Christians, let alone little Episcopalians. I wanted to raise serious ethical and spiritual questions for the teens to think about, not give them canned answers.
Anyway, at lunch, she asked me if I was a moral relativist or an absolutist. I told her I was a relativist. What is wrong in one situation may be necessary in another. She replied she was a moral absolutist, which, given the entire character of the conversation, was no surprise to me. I asked her if she believed it was wrong to kill, and she told me it was. I asked her if it was ever justifiable to kill, and she said no. I then asked her, if her children were being threatened, and she had a gun, and the only way to end the threat was to kill the person, would she shoot to save her children. She replied immediately that of course she would. I then told her she was a moral relativist, which made her quite put out with me.
Ethical and political absolutists rarely like being called out on their inconsistencies. McCarthy writes this paragraph-
"To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America's or the Taliban's: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I've had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring."
Well, if you admire the principles, disciplines and sacrifices of those who join armies, why do you object to recruiting on college campuses? This strikes me a tacit recognition that a military is essential, no matter how much what it does is repugnant.
One of the ironies of 'the peace movement' is that it concentrates so much on what SHOULD be as opposed to how to get there, or on what IS. This is so typical of liberals in general. McCarthy does not want to acknowledge that sometimes you have to fight. I wonder what he would do if someone came up and punched him in the face. Would he get up and say 'please don't do that'? Would he ask 'why did you do that', and try to reason with the person? What if someone punched him in the face, tried to grab his wallet and rape his wife? When would he punch back? Or would he simply leave all that dirty business to those admirable, principled people in the police force whose recruiting he would restrict?
Anyone who reads military history knows that soldiers deplore war more than any group in the world. Veterans of combat rarely talk about what they saw or did. Read Douglas Macarthur's farewell speech in front of Congress for a moving and eloquent description of how a lifelong soldier feels about war and killing.
As spoken in 'Elizabeth', it is well to ask why a thing should be done, but if it must be done, then do it now and quickly, without regret or mercy. No one deplores the horror of killing more than a soldier, because he has to do it. He wants a good reason to do it. But if it must be done, it should be done aggressively, violently and quickly, that it be over all the more quickly.
Not every day is sunny. We all get sick, we all mourn, cry, lust and die. The realities of life are quite different from social fantasies of perfect harmony, adequate food, medical care and knowledge. Inequality is real, and it leads to violence. Unless you are prepared to resist violence done unto you with violence, you will be destroyed. For those who are willing to pay that price I deeply admire the living of their values (the gospel stories of Jesus do come to mind).
Society at large does not subscribe to those values, being willing to fight and kill to defend what is of value to them. To do that requires a military. Once that reality is acknowledged, the recruiting of officers is an essential social task. Those recruiters represent a set of values and ideas, and they should have every bit as much access to a college as any other set of ideas.
Those giving lectures about arcane ideas would do well to remember their right to do so is guaranteed by the very force they despise. I wonder what all those pacifist idealists would say if they were told they could no longer promulgate their ideas and values. I bet they would look to someone to restore their 'rights'. Well, you have to fight for them, and that's what the military you decry does. You should have the grace to let them recruit those who would fight and die for you.
Ted
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122903033.html
The author, Colman McCarthy, directs the Center for Teaching Peace. As one would expect, he argues that ROTC should not be allowed on campuses. He specifically makes an example of 'the elite schools', and says that if Harvard allows the ROTC on campus they should put up a sign at the gates saying 'Harvard: a Pentagon annex'.
I see no reason why ROTC should NOT be allowed on a campus. It is a set of values and ideas embodied as an organization. These schools argue loudly against the slightest kind of sexual, ethnic, racial or religious prejudice, and universal tolerance of these defining characteristics. They then argue hypocritically that the values represented by the ROTC are not consistent with school values.
Religions do much the same thing. They preach tolerance, peace and acceptance until it comes to ideas they do not tolerate. Both liberals and religious conservatives thus display the same kind of skewed 'tolerance' only of that which they approve.
I once had lunch with a woman who was co-teaching a church class with me for 13 year olds. She wanted to understand my values, likely a reflection of my frankness with the director of church classes. I had told her I would not be paying anything like strict attention to the nominal curriculum of the course. I had also told the director that I was not interested in creating little Christians, let alone little Episcopalians. I wanted to raise serious ethical and spiritual questions for the teens to think about, not give them canned answers.
Anyway, at lunch, she asked me if I was a moral relativist or an absolutist. I told her I was a relativist. What is wrong in one situation may be necessary in another. She replied she was a moral absolutist, which, given the entire character of the conversation, was no surprise to me. I asked her if she believed it was wrong to kill, and she told me it was. I asked her if it was ever justifiable to kill, and she said no. I then asked her, if her children were being threatened, and she had a gun, and the only way to end the threat was to kill the person, would she shoot to save her children. She replied immediately that of course she would. I then told her she was a moral relativist, which made her quite put out with me.
Ethical and political absolutists rarely like being called out on their inconsistencies. McCarthy writes this paragraph-
"To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America's or the Taliban's: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I've had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring."
Well, if you admire the principles, disciplines and sacrifices of those who join armies, why do you object to recruiting on college campuses? This strikes me a tacit recognition that a military is essential, no matter how much what it does is repugnant.
One of the ironies of 'the peace movement' is that it concentrates so much on what SHOULD be as opposed to how to get there, or on what IS. This is so typical of liberals in general. McCarthy does not want to acknowledge that sometimes you have to fight. I wonder what he would do if someone came up and punched him in the face. Would he get up and say 'please don't do that'? Would he ask 'why did you do that', and try to reason with the person? What if someone punched him in the face, tried to grab his wallet and rape his wife? When would he punch back? Or would he simply leave all that dirty business to those admirable, principled people in the police force whose recruiting he would restrict?
Anyone who reads military history knows that soldiers deplore war more than any group in the world. Veterans of combat rarely talk about what they saw or did. Read Douglas Macarthur's farewell speech in front of Congress for a moving and eloquent description of how a lifelong soldier feels about war and killing.
As spoken in 'Elizabeth', it is well to ask why a thing should be done, but if it must be done, then do it now and quickly, without regret or mercy. No one deplores the horror of killing more than a soldier, because he has to do it. He wants a good reason to do it. But if it must be done, it should be done aggressively, violently and quickly, that it be over all the more quickly.
Not every day is sunny. We all get sick, we all mourn, cry, lust and die. The realities of life are quite different from social fantasies of perfect harmony, adequate food, medical care and knowledge. Inequality is real, and it leads to violence. Unless you are prepared to resist violence done unto you with violence, you will be destroyed. For those who are willing to pay that price I deeply admire the living of their values (the gospel stories of Jesus do come to mind).
Society at large does not subscribe to those values, being willing to fight and kill to defend what is of value to them. To do that requires a military. Once that reality is acknowledged, the recruiting of officers is an essential social task. Those recruiters represent a set of values and ideas, and they should have every bit as much access to a college as any other set of ideas.
Those giving lectures about arcane ideas would do well to remember their right to do so is guaranteed by the very force they despise. I wonder what all those pacifist idealists would say if they were told they could no longer promulgate their ideas and values. I bet they would look to someone to restore their 'rights'. Well, you have to fight for them, and that's what the military you decry does. You should have the grace to let them recruit those who would fight and die for you.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment