Hello TAH readers. \u00a0My name is Uber Pig, and some of you may be familiar with my work over at Blackfive. \u00a0I’ve been lurking for a while, waiting for something to say here, something worthwhile. \u00a0And then just a few minutes ago a good friend of mine, and a former Marine, emailed me this op-ed published in the Stanford Daily, as we both have a connection to that august university. \u00a0Fisking an opinion like this is quite often the hoary trick of an amateur writer, but in this instance I feel compelled to soil myself, and beg your forgiveness:<\/p>\n
\nOp-Ed: ROTC is our choice. Let\u2019s make the right one<\/h1>\n
While the debate over the prospect of ROTC returning to campus continues in print, the majority of the Stanford student body has yet to take ownership of this issue. But with the ad hoc Faculty Senate committee having already set a deadline for community submissions (Nov. 22), now is the time for\u00a0all<\/em>students to get informed and make their views heard.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sorry, how does one take ownership of an issue? \u00a0And in what way is “taking ownership” of an issue different from just, well, discussing it, like adults, instead of pretending we’re in an alcoholics anonymous meeting? \u00a0But I digress:<\/p>\n
One impediment to student involvement in the debate thus far has been the framing of arguments in terms of Stanford having an \u201cobligation\u201d to permit ROTC to return (Kyle O\u2019Malley and Evan Storms writing in the Stanford Review\u00a0on Nov. 7<\/a>) or what Stanford \u201cowes\u201d students enrolled in ROTC (the Stanford Daily editorial board\u00a0on Sept. 29<\/a>). To be absolutely clear: Stanford is a private institution and has absolutely no obligation, legal or otherwise, to either permit or prohibit ROTC\u2019s presence on campus.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And I’m sure this point is technically correct. \u00a0On the other hand, it’s probably worth mentioning that the federal government has no obligation to support research or provide money in the form of Pell Grants to Stanford students if Stanford University discriminates against the military. \u00a0Otherwise known as a branch of the federal government.<\/p>\n
This is an important and exciting fact. It means that we, as students, have complete freedom to decide whether or not we want to permit the military of this country to have an ROTC presence on our campus. Obviously there\u2019s no guarantee that the University\u2019s final decision will reflect student opinion, but we can surely be confident that our views, if expressed openly and articulately, will play a significant role in the administration\u2019s decision-making process.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Oh yes. \u00a0I can feel the excitement. \u00a0It’s electric.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s resources could instead be allocated in ways that would have greater positive overall effects.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One can debate the logicaliciousness of the positivicity regarding the effects of on-campus ROTC all day long to the student body in general, when the benefits accrue only to that minority of Stanford students who have availed themselves of the ROTC program. \u00a0While you’re at it though, it’s logically consistent to examinize how much positive value MECHA brings to the university as a whole when most students aren’t Arab, and how much positive value the various gay and lesbian support programs bring to the university as a whole when most students are heterosexual.<\/p>\n
Of course, if the effects of on-campus ROTC would be negative overall, as my research has led me to suspect, there is no need to consider the opportunity cost of allocating Stanford\u2019s resources to this cause. However, if your own research leads to a different conclusion with respect to the effects of on-campus ROTC, don\u2019t forget to also consider the fact that, by allocating resources to ROTC, Stanford would not be in a position to allocate resources to some other, potentially more beneficial, project.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Which would those be, dickhead? \u00a0More frisbee golf? \u00a0!#%k off.<\/p>\n
As for the probable effects of on-campus ROTC, one way to approach the issue is to ask why the military would ostensibly jump at the chance to establish an ROTC training center on our campus. Would this enable them to significantly increase the number of scholarships they grant? Probably not. The number of scholarships is largely determined by the military\u2019s need for officers (which, incidentally, is currently quite low in all branches other than the army). And even if it would increase the number of scholarships or cause more students to join, I\u2019m not sure that convenience should be the dispositive factor in students\u2019 decisions to dedicate nine to 12 years of their lives to the military.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
No, you’re not sure of anything. \u00a0Are you?<\/p>\n
Would it enable the military to train ROTC candidates more efficiently? Again, probably not. While it may be less convenient for the students being trained, it is surely more efficient for large numbers of students to be trained in a single location than in multiple smaller training centers. (One exception might be if Stanford was to bear a significant portion of the cost of establishing the on-campus center, which would, in my view, be a highly questionable use of University resources.) So what would be the military\u2019s motivation for coming here?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Right on, bubba. \u00a0Let’s send all the Stanford students who wish to train for ROTC to Reno or something. \u00a0Pool the resources, as it were. \u00a0While we’re at it, let’s do the same thing for people, like the opinion’s author, who hate the military. \u00a0Give them a place they can all get together and pool their resources and horror stories about the movies they’ve seen about Vietnam. \u00a0And then let’s call it San Francisco State University.<\/p>\n