Let the Military on Campus

[Stu]

A very real and growing phenomeno with a variety of reasons causing it.

__________________________

Let the Military on Campus

Washington Post

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, December 3, 2004; Page A27

When a circuit court ruled this week that universities could bar military recruiters from campuses without the risk of losing federal money, many liberals cheered. They should hold the cheering and reconsider the implications of their actions.

Whatever the merits of the ruling, the idea of keeping recruiters away from elite universities is a large mistake -- for the military, for our country and for liberalism itself. The growing separation between the military and many parts of our society, especially its most liberal and elite precincts, is a huge problem. Closing that divide should be one of liberalism's highest priorities. It should be a high priority for the military, too.

The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit involved a decade-old federal provision pushed through by the late representative Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.). The law prohibits the federal government from giving money to colleges and universities that block military recruiting. A group of law schools insisted that they be able to keep the recruiters away because the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality violated their own policies forbidding discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In a 2 to 1 decision, the majority ruled that an earlier Supreme Court decision allowing the Boy Scouts to bar homosexuals from becoming scoutmasters created the same freedom of association for the law schools. "The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives," the majority wrote, "and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom."

Let's accept for the sake of argument that, in a close call, the court made the right ruling in protecting academic freedom. I'd assert further that the universities are absolutely right in opposing "don't ask, don't tell." The policy is both wrong and stupid.

It's wrong because it puts the government in a position of encouraging gays and lesbians in the military to lie about who they are. It is stupid because at a moment when we want our military to have access to all the talent it can get, we should welcome the service of all patriotic Americans, including those who are openly gay. We shouldn't make these patriots vulnerable to intimidation, pressure and even blackmail.

But having won their principle in court, these universities, including the law schools, should now voluntarily open their doors to recruiters. Liberals especially should be worried about the growing divide between the armed forces and many parts of our society. They should acknowledge that if liberals stay out of the military, their chances of influencing the military culture are reduced to close to zero. Above all, liberals should worry about the unfairness in the way the burdens of service are borne.

As former Navy secretary John Lehman wrote in The Post last year, "Our all-volunteer force, for all its many virtues, is not representative of American society. The privileged are largely absent from it. Thus the burdens of defense and the perils of combat do not fall even close to fairly across all of our society."

Lehman was reacting to a notable 2002 New York Times op-ed by Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat. "A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while the most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent," Rangel wrote.

One of the most powerful warnings about the dangerous gap between military and civilian life came from Thomas E. Ricks, now a correspondent on military affairs for The Post. In his book "Making the Corps" and in an influential 1997 article in the Atlantic Monthly, Ricks spoke of the increasing distance between military and civilian life -- and in particular the split between the military and our professional civilian classes.

"U.S. military personnel of all ranks are feeling increasingly alienated from their own country, and are becoming both more conservative and more politically active than ever before," Ricks wrote in the Atlantic. He argued that the division between military and civilian life was a symptom of something larger: "the isolation of professional Americans, or the upper middle class, from the broad concerns of society. Ignorance of the military is, I think, just one manifestation of that larger problem."

Yes, and liberal university administrators can do something about it. The best way to change the military and to create greater fairness in sharing the burdens of defending our country is to embrace the call to service, not reject it. By opening their doors to recruiters, our universities can strengthen our democracy.

[DjTj]

Allowing military recruiters onto elite campuses isn't going to accomplish much in the way of bringing the privileged into the military.

The privileged, and especially the highly-qualified privileged at these universities, have a myriad of choices about where to go and few will choose a job because of some pitch at a career fair. The ones who choose the military will do so because they want to, not because they are recruited.

This military ban is largely symbolic and its effect will be largely symbolic.

[Stu]

Originally posted by DjTj

Allowing military recruiters onto elite campuses isn't going to accomplish much in the way of bringing the privileged into the military.

The privileged, and especially the highly-qualified privileged at these universities, have a myriad of choices about where to go and few will choose a job because of some pitch at a career fair. The ones who choose the military will do so because they want to, not because they are recruited.

This military ban is largely symbolic and its effect will be largely symbolic.

I agree with you on that. My question is why the elite at these universities choose not to serve, especially the liberal elite?

[Destino]

Originally posted by Stu

I agree with you on that. My question is why the elite at these universities choose not to serve, especially the liberal elite?

I think the feeling of rejection works both ways. Liberals don't feel they are welcome in the armed forces, and frankly I can't blame them. The armed forces leadership typically is seen as supporting right wing social agendas and the troops aren't allowed to have an opinion.

Not to mention many find it unlikely that they will rise in rank if right wing officers find out about their liberal leanings.

Now clearly people that lean left but aren't defined by their politics can join the military easily. They don't have views so strong that they get in the way of their proffesional goals. But you mentioned the liebral elite, and that's my opinion on them.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Destino

I think the feeling of rejection works both ways. Liberals don't feel they are welcome in the armed forces, and frankly I can't blame them. The armed forces leadership typically is seen as supporting right wing social agendas and the troops aren't allowed to have an opinion.

Not to mention many find it unlikely that they will rise in rank if right wing officers find out about their liberal leanings.

Now clearly people that lean left but aren't defined by their politics can join the military easily. They don't have views so strong that they get in the way of their proffesional goals. But you mentioned the liebral elite, and that's my opinion on them.

I don't think the military feels rejected. All it cares about is capable and dedicated individuals to fill the ranks.

While some liberals may have the perceptions you noted, I have never seen anything like that nor I have every seen that kind of issue affect promotion opportunities.. With regard to senior leadership, I can think of several high ranking flag officers that are of the leftist persuasion.

I would like to hear comments from those on the left side of the fence on why they did or did not serve and if so did they ever feel as though their political beliefs limited their career opportunities?

[DarkLadyRaven]

Originally posted by Stu

I would like to hear comments from those on the left side of the fence on why they did or did not serve and if so did they ever feel as though their political beliefs limited their career opportunities?

Who actually defines themselves as liberal ?

All ive meet are self proclaimed moderates- which is where the majority of americans are.

When was the last time youve meet a radical guerilla who want to overthrow the " Rich" in this country or destory the system?

[Zen-like Todd]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Who actually defines themselves as liberal ?

All ive meet are self proclaimed moderates- which is where the majority of americans are.

When was the last time youve meet a radical guerilla who want to overthrow the " Rich" in this country or destory the system?

Every day. Seriously.

[Stu]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Who actually defines themselves as liberal ?

All ive meet are self proclaimed moderates- which is where the majority of americans are.

When was the last time youve meet a radical guerilla who want to overthrow the " Rich" in this country or destory the system?

Well, I think everyone likes to think that they are moderate but certainly a fair amount of us have taken up residence on the more partisan branches of our political system. I have two fellow officers in my squadron that very much call themselves liberal for example. I am without a doubt a conservative. Besides, if we were all moderates then one would think the amount of debate in this country would be minimal.

Imperfect labels as they are, "conservative" and "liberal" do have some value in defining the divisions we have in this country.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by DarkLadyRaven

Who actually defines themselves as liberal ?

All ive meet are self proclaimed moderates- which is where the majority of americans are.

When was the last time youve meet a radical guerilla who want to overthrow the " Rich" in this country or destory the system?

I call my self a liberal and a libertarian. I don't think I am a centrist, I only think I am right. (I guess centrist is different than moderate, but not too far off)

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Stu

I agree with you on that. My question is why the elite at these universities choose not to serve, especially the liberal elite?

Why would anyone want to go and fight in Iraq? Why would anyone want to give up parts of their freedom? I for one would never, under any circumstance consider joining the military unless I thought the country was in actual danger.

[Taylor 36]

Originally posted by Liberty

Why would anyone want to go and fight in Iraq? Why would anyone want to give up parts of their freedom? I for one would never, under any circumstance consider joining the military unless I thought the country was in actual danger.

That only shows how sad, ungrateful, and ignorant you are. So many millions of people have given their lives to create this country and all that it stands for, and you question why any of them would join the military to do it? That is not giving up freedom in anyway, shape, or form. That is defending and honoring freedom, period. And if you are too blind to see and recognize that this country IS in real danger, and has been for decades, then maybe you should work on opening your eyes and closing your mouth so you won't spew your ignorance.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by voltaire007

That only shows how sad, ungrateful, and ignorant you are. So many millions of people have given their lives to create this country and all that it stands for, and you question why any of them would join the military to do it? That is not giving up freedom in anyway, shape, or form. That is defending and honoring freedom, period. And if you are too blind to see and recognize that this country IS in real danger, and has been for decades, then maybe you should work on opening your eyes and closing your mouth so you won't spew your ignorance.

blah blah blah...

[Nerm]

Maybe a little off topic, but I have a question.

Does/did the military force homosexuals to fight if they are drafted? If a gay person is drafted are they kicked out as soon as their tour is up? No option to sign up for a 2nd tour etc?

I'm guessing the homophobia stops in times of need.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Nerm

Maybe a little off topic, but I have a question.

Does/did the military force homosexuals to fight if they are drafted? If a gay person is drafted are they kicked out as soon as their tour is up? No option to sign up for a 2nd tour etc?

I'm guessing the homophobia stops in times of need.

Open homosexuals are processed out immediately.

There is no fear of a homosexual in the military, thus your term of "homophobia" is misplaced. Rather, open homosexuality has been deemed detrimental to good order in discipline in a profession where distractions need to be minimized so that the focus can remain on killing the enemy.

[Nerm]

Originally posted by Stu

Open homosexuals are processed out immediately.

There is no fear of a homosexual in the military, thus your term of "homophobia" is misplaced. Rather, open homosexuality has been deemed detrimental to good order in discipline in a profession where distractions need to be minimized so that the focus can remain on killing the enemy.

Wouldn't that be a fear of the impact homosexuals would have on the military then? When I use the term homophobia, I don't envision a bunch of guys in camo jumping on their bunks shrieking like they saw a mouse. Bad word choice on my part.

Maybe it is just the fear of the impact that homosexuals would have on bigots in the military. They wouldn't follow orders, etc. Why not just court marshal the trouble makers, whether they are gay or not? Didn’t we go through this with race and gender already?

[Stu]

Originally posted by Nerm

Maybe it is just the fear of the impact that homosexuals would have on bigots in the military. They wouldn't follow orders, etc. Why not just court marshal the trouble makers, whether they are gay or not? Didn’t we go through this with race and gender already?

I understand what you are saying. But I think given the constrained living conditions with real privacy issues and the need not to have distractions of this type when you are doing the kind of job that the military does makes that approach not realistic (meaning why burden our commanders with silly stuff like this when they should be concentrating on killing the enemy in an efficient manner).

Incidentally, everyone in the military knows that there are gays serving. As long as they keep it to themselves, no one really cares. It's just when it becomes open that it is a problem.

To be honest, I think the letting females into combat roles has brought many more problems that it is worth and lump it into the same category as this. Unfortunately that cat is already out of the bag. I don't see the same comparison with regards to race.

[Larry]

Originally posted by voltaire007 That only shows how sad, ungrateful, and ignorant you are. So many millions of people have given their lives to create this country and all that it stands for, and you question why any of them would join the military to do it? That is not giving up freedom in anyway, shape, or form. That is defending and honoring freedom, period. And if you are too blind to see and recognize that this country IS in real danger, and has been for decades, then maybe you should work on opening your eyes and closing your mouth so you won't spew your ignorance.

Now, voltaire, Liberty's at least partly right.

People who join the military do give up some rights.

Some (perhaps many) do so because they believe that their sacrifice is a necessary price for those freedoms to exist. But they do lose them, at least temporarily.

And as to Liberty's other positions, let's face it, it is at least debatable that the folks dieing in Iraq are defending us from anything. (I'm not certain that they're not, but I do lean that way.)

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Destino

I think the feeling of rejection works both ways. Liberals don't feel they are welcome in the armed forces, and frankly I can't blame them. The armed forces leadership typically is seen as supporting right wing social agendas and the troops aren't allowed to have an opinion.

Not to mention many find it unlikely that they will rise in rank if right wing officers find out about their liberal leanings.

Now clearly people that lean left but aren't defined by their politics can join the military easily. They don't have views so strong that they get in the way of their proffesional goals. But you mentioned the liebral elite, and that's my opinion on them.

What are you talking about????

I spent 10 years in Marine Infantry units and never ONCE discussed politics with anyone. Its not a priority. I don't know that if you'd held a gun to my head I could have even told you which political direction my peers even leaned in???

There are a lot of generalities and stereotypes being thrown around in this thread, and its only gone two pages.

I think its laughable that universities won't let military recruiters on their campuses. It demonstrates that ignorance isn't always linked to low SAT scores and a lack of education. Its ironic that a setting devoted above all else to opening the mind and encouraging free thought of its students so fears allowing students to hear what the military has to offer. Its really a slap in the face to folks who serve (some of whom are attending these very universities as we speak).

Keep on harping about things you know little about guys....its great entertainment.

[JoeSkins]

Originally posted by Liberty

I call my self a liberal and a libertarian. I don't think I am a centrist, I only think I am right. (I guess centrist is different than moderate, but not too far off)

You don't know much to consider yourself both a libertarian and a liberal. Once you said that, your opinion stopped counting.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by JoeSkins

You don't know much to consider yourself both a libertarian and a liberal. Once you said that, your opinion stopped counting.

I think if you actually knew what both words ment your opinon might have actually started to count.

[du7st]

An elite university, more then any other mass educational system I can think of, promotes self discovery and individuality. On the other end of the spectrum, the military is the greatest bastion of conformity (with perhaps large corporations being a close second). I am not putting down the military - its system is structured to be efficient and I for one am thankful that it is. That doesn't mean I would willingly join it. The rift between elite universities and the military in this regard makes it impossible to get those students to join the armed forces.

Recruiting on elite campuses seems about the worst place to do it. Common sense tells you to go to the city basketball courts and strip malls instead.

[JoeSkins]

Originally posted by Destino

I think the feeling of rejection works both ways. Liberals don't feel they are welcome in the armed forces, and frankly I can't blame them. The armed forces leadership typically is seen as supporting right wing social agendas and the troops aren't allowed to have an opinion.

The military doesn't take political stands, because its essence is not of a political nature. Most of them disdain politics.

And no, low-ranking troops don't get their opinions heard, because that's a dangerous concept. The chain of command exists for a reason. The people who rank are the people qualified to make decisions, that's why they're the people who rank. If my brother, who is a PFC, went to his Major one day and said, "Gee, Dana, I think we should wear the Betas today because I was talking to some of the men and we like tan better than olive," the good Major would kick his butt. I wouldn't blame him for doing it either. It's simply not done, because that would cause more harm than good.

Of course, the only living military in my family is of the USMC variety, I don't know fully how other branches operate. But the two VFW's that I know would say the same thing.

It's shameful that these schools are turning the people who keep them safe into the "bad guys". Of course, how can I be surprised by this? The people running these schools are the same kind of people (if not the very same) who greeted my father by spitting on his uniform and cussing at him when he returned home from Nam thirty years ago. Military-hating is tradition with them. Some things don't change. Burn the flag, it means nothing anyway.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by du7st

An elite university, more then any other mass educational system I can think of, promotes self discovery and individuality. On the other end of the spectrum, the military is the greatest bastion of conformity (with perhaps large corporations being a close second). I am not putting down the military - its system is structured to be efficient and I for one am thankful that it is. That doesn't mean I would willingly join it. The rift between elite universities and the military in this regard makes it impossible to get those students to join the armed forces.

Recruiting on elite campuses seems about the worst place to do it. Common sense tells you to go to the city basketball courts and strip malls instead.

Thats just a total crock. No offense du7st, but you just don't know what you're talking about. Theres a huge difference between 'discipline' and 'command structure' and 'conformity'. Guys who join the military often do so because they've been unable to conform, not because they're conformist. You are so wrong about that. You walk up to any military guy and tell him he's a conformist (and I DO understand you don't intend it as an insult). They'll laugh in your face.

In a lot of ways, the military puts more power, responsibility and individual decision-making freedom in front of its youthful members than any other life decision they could make.

And I'd also argue that most universities have an agenda, both administratively and in their curriculums and choice of staff that often stifles debate, and doesn't encourage it.

Do me a favor? Stand up in the middle of your next lecture class and tell the professor he's dead wrong and then try to explain why. See how much he or she urges on your 'individualism' and 'free thinking' mindset. It'll be a great life lesson for you.

By the way, I've got two degrees from outstanding schools. I speak from experience, not conjecture.

[JoeSkins]

Originally posted by Tarhog

By the way, I've got two degrees from outstanding schools. I speak from experience, not conjecture.

You told a professor he/she was dead wrong?

[Tarhog]

Once.

I got a 'C'. All I remember was we were studying the Peloponnesion War...guy worked for Carter in the State Dept. He was NEVER wrong, not even about ancient history : )

Of course you can't argue that all professors operate that way, but my experience was that they get so used to everyone agreeing with them and are so insulated that they can't handle someone challenging them. The really good ones almost develop a kind of rock star celebrity and persona.

I had one at UVa who'd come onto the auditorium stage every class with shades, carrying a briefcase, and with the James Bond them playing over the speaker system. No lie.