Some colleges and universities, including many law schools, have adopted policies barring on-campus recruiting by organizations unless all students are eligible for employment by the recruiting group.

The U.S. military is one example of an organization that has faced difficulty in recruiting on campus because the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (under which openly gay men and lesbians are barred from serving in the Armed Forces) is at odds with some campus anti-discrimination standards.

The Solomon Amendment was passed in 1996. Any institution of higher learning could deny military recruiters access to students and resources, but would do so at the cost of all federal funding.

It has been 34 years now, over a third of a century, since Harvard University banned the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) from its campus. It has been nearly eight years since Harvard, upon the demands of its faculty, withdrew all financial support from the group.

Should university administrators be allowed to bar ROTC from campus?

Has Harvard been stripped of all federal funding?

To the best of my knowledge the Solomon amendment affects Perkins Loan, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant, and Work-Study programs.
I am assuming it is the same in Harvards case, I'm still researching the legal aspects.

I disagree with ROTC programs being barred from universities, but I vehemently disagree with homosexuals being barred from the military. I also disagree with federal funding being witheld from universities which do bar ROTC programs. So this one's a bit of a dilemma for me. Or maybe I'm just a disagreeable guy.

From my perspective the military has done just fine without any Harvard ROTC. Because a Harvard graduate could still elect to join the military, go to OCS(Officer Candidate School), and upon passing become an officer in any branch of service. ROTC is just one of many ways to become and officer. If it becomes a growing trend whereby schools start kicking ROTC off campus, and recruitment of officers becomes a problem, you can be sure the government will review its poplicy on homosexuals and perhaps rescind the current statute.

OK, now I'm cranky. I found a bug in the newest Opera beta, and it wiped out my post.....

Lets see if I can do this again....

Do you remember a few years back, when a black man waited around for 2 hours to be served at a Dennys restaurant, somewhere in the south? He either waited around a VERY long time, if he was EVER served at all.

From my perspective, Black people in Oregon have done just fine even though, one of their own was not served breakfast at a Dennys 2000 miles away. Because a black man still has many choices to get breakfast: Eat at home, eat somewhere else, eat at his work's cafeteria, and upon doing any of those, still have a full belly. Dennys is just one way to get breakfast. If it becomes a growing trend whereby Dennys restaurants start denying Black persons breakfast, and black people start going to work on empty stomachs, you can be sure the government will review it's policy on Dennys business licenses and franchise agreements, and perhaps revoke them...

NOTE - NO, that is not how I feel about that situation...AND this is not the place to debate this subject....I'm just giving an example....

This may or may not be a good example, but it does illustrate the sillyness of your argument. If this happens once, you have to nip it in the bud. Yes, there are many ways of joining the military, but why should anybody limit your choices?

If it's a public school, then it should allow all other public institions access. Period. If we're talking about a private school, then by definition, they can do what they want.

Many public schools have been trying to kick the military out of their school completely. I don't think it should be up to the school, it should be up to the students. If you do or don't want to join the military, it's YOUR choice, not that of the school administration.

For those PUBLIC schools who fail to comply, should have their status of public revoked, denyed ALL federal funding...and made to go private.

The military will take anyone no matter which school they attend. To my knowledge, the GI Bill does not limit your choices of education (correct me if I'm wrong) so why should the schools limit your choice of military service?

--cheers

Just in case anyone is not too familiar with ROTC, a lot of college students take the Freshman and Sophmore level courses and don't contract with the Military.

These lower level classes teach mostly leadership, ethics, values, time management, and problem solving skills.

The Junior and Senior level classes are where tactics and more 'military' subjects are taught, and most of these students will be commissioned after graduation.

Some college ROTC programs also offer adventure training type classes. Rock climbing, rapelling, rafting, etc...


Just keep in mind that Congress ultimately makes the decision to keep or remove 'don't ask, don't tell'. It's not up to the military branches, or ROTC detachments.

I keep that in mind every time I vote.

Actually isn't it ultimately up to the President on this isuue?

Back to lurking,
Darcaine[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]

I had a hard time following your rambling, incoherent post. First of all, Harvard is a private school. Discrimination is not allowed anywhere, private or public college. People who wish to join ROTC would not go to Harvard. Or as I said in my lucid, clear post, they could simply graduate, then apply to OCS. So where are their choices being limited? THey went to the school they wanted, Harvard as an example, and then they joined the military. Not every school has every program. Some school don't have wrestling or girls volleyball program, but according to your logic, those school are now discriminating against athletes. Your arguement holds no water Digital Patriot. Additionally, the G.I. Bill can only be used at institutions accredited by recognized agencies. And the military will not "take anyone from any college' as you state. Drug use, felonies, certain misdemeanors, honor code violators are not accepted for military service.

Instead of being rude to DP for his post, why don't you ask him about the specific points on which you were unclear? There is no reason to be rude.

To clarify, the GI Bill and ROTC are not interrelated. The GI Bill is an education option that enlisted soldiers pay into during their first year in the Army. They can then use that money at any accredited school, whether it be college, truck driving school or culinary institute.

HeatherRob was correct in that the military does still have some standards for entrance, but you're incorrect about graduating college and going into OCS. That option is open to people who enlist first, and then go before a board to get selected to attend.

ROTC currently provides the majority of commissioned officers to the military, and it is a better deal for most because it is conducted simultaneously with college, and many get ROTC scholarships to help pay tuition.

Actually DontTreadonme, you are incorrect about the OCS program. It is not expressly for people who enlisted first. OCS is required for all applicants to officer programs, except for those who graduated from a service academy. There are other programs for those who enlist first. I am in the Marine Corps. MCEP allows a qualified enlisted marine to go to college, graduate after 4 years and then become commisioned in the Marines as an officer. But the person must still attend OCS. Just like someone who had no military training whatsoever, graduated college, then decided to join the military. They could enlist, or elect to go to PLC, Platoon Leaders Course, which prepares you for OCS and the Basic School, a six month school required of all Marine officers. So as you see, the only people, at least Marine Corps wise, who do not have to go to OCS are Naval Academy graduates.

Marines and Army work differently. Arm ROTC grads don't go to OCS, only those who enlist first, attend Basic and Advanced Individual Training and go before an OCS board.

Sorry for that confusion, should have stated that it was the Army process.

Semper Fi!

1) I stated I was already ticked becuase the browser deleted my first post, and I had to retype it.

2) I was sick all weekend, and stayed home from work yesterday sick. I wrote that response when I was sick, so sorry if you found it a little less than legible.

3) If my post doesn't make sense, how do you know it doesn't hold any water?

4) My argument is your argument, twisted around to fit a different scenerio. If my argument doesn't hold any water, neither does yours.

--cheers

Duly noted and I stand corrected as well

Hoo-ah!