<p>"Helped by the recession, more active recruiting and a sea change in student perceptions of the military, ROTC programs on college campuses are thriving. And some elite schools like Stanford and Harvard are welcoming ROTC back for the first time in decades..."</p>
<p>ROTC:</a> Once a campus outcast, ROTC is booming at universities - latimes.com</p>
<p>Well, ROTC isn’t exactly being welcomed back with open arms at Stanford: a large portion of the student body is still opposed to it, mostly for its continued discrimination against transgender students.</p>
<p>“welcomed” is definitely not the right word.
for the administration leaders, yes. for faculty, many are divided. for students, it is a very polarized issue, and according to the campus vote, more students opposed it than not. (people will say that many abstained but most of them abstained because of the transgender rights campaign).</p>
<p>
I thought it was unwise (to say the least) for the transgender community to push for the “abstain” vote. I still don’t know what message that sent. Also, some of the transgender community expressed to the ad-hoc committee that they would not welcome back ROTC even if the military lifted its effective ban on transgender members. That really hurt their case too in my opinion.</p>
<p>Even if the transgender community believed the “abstain” campaign was more proper, or they truly had a grudge against ROTC that extended beyond the transgender issues, these were both strategies that hurt their cause. If anything, the transgender community could learn a thing or two from our military in this regard.</p>
<p>The campaign to abstain, I think, was to muddle the results sufficiently so that the Faculty Senate couldn’t use it to guide them: they would have no idea how many are opposed in solidarity for trans people, or for other reasons, or how many are actually opposed (i.e. you can’t tell how many people would have voted “abstain” regardless, so the results are meaningless).</p>
<p>Also, it wasn’t the trans community that expressed that they would still oppose ROTC if they didn’t discriminate, but Stanford Says No to War, which used the trans rights cause to its advantage.</p>
<p>It’s a travesty that a fine program like ROTC has been banned from top American schools like Stanford for so many years. We all know that the transgender issue is merely a front for the liberal faculties and student of most schools to express their opposition towards war and the military.</p>
<p>Yes, all of us evil liberals who oppose war. And you godfearing conservatives who favor it.</p>
<p>vengasso, believe it or not, some people are actually opposed to it because of its discrimination against trans people, and as soon as ROTC and the military lift their policy against them, these people who were previously opposed would actually welcome it back with open arms.</p>
<p>Making a blanket statement about an entire group of people and assuming the worst intentions, even of those who are genuine, does nothing more than make you look like an idiot.</p>
<p>In other words, what annasdad said.</p>
<p>Also, for the record, a large part of the reason that ROTC had been banned at Stanford (and many other campuses) was because of the Kent State shootings.</p>
<p>[Kent</a> State shootings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings]Kent”>Kent State shootings - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>If you’d been around at that time, you probably wouldn’t have been too happy with the military either, regardless of your political disposition.</p>
<p>
There’s a big difference between favoring war and favoring ROTC. Many who favored ROTC’s return are likely opposed to some of America’s current wars. </p>
<p>But the fact of the matter is, in the foreseeable future there will always be a military. And there will need to be leaders of that military. Many hope that by placing highly-educated people in positions of rank, that injustices associated with the military will be resolved. And also there is a hope that in educating regular students (who likely will not join the military) about the history and ethics of war, the future business and political leaders of this nation will not be so detached from the military leaders. </p>
<p>In short, pro-ROTC =/= pro-war</p>
<p>Senior0991, that was excellently put, even though my personal preference would be for ROTC to remain separate from campus life.</p>
<p>Part of the training the ROTC will provide relates to the art of war, which includes killing people. That might be a useful skill at certain times, but when your country is in the midst of a long slow economic decline you’re better off allocating those resources to something more productive. Truth is, those with military training get tired of fighting wars and dealing with the strain on their families. They want to return to civilian life, and since we keep hearing the term heroes thrown around loosely, the expectation is that these men and women will be entitled to employment - bad assumption. The problem with ROTC is that it derails the productive learning and career paths of citizens that might otherwise be on track to make a bigger contribution to society. Sexual preference is a red herring here, ROTC and our military personnel are used by the defense industry to make sure their leaders/workers get an unwarranted share of our resources.</p>
<p>
The problem with a place like Stanford is that it channels the productive learning and career paths of some of the brightest students into starting-up social networking companies that have a marginal benefit on society. Farmville anyone? Unfortunately (in my opinion) that’s where the money is right now. </p>
<p>If the brightest students today are leading the military tomorrow, who knows what can happen? Maybe they’ll make it more efficient. Create more jobs with less expenditures. Maybe they’ll usher in a new generation of innovations that can save the lives of American soldiers and innocent civilians abroad. Maybe they’ll help develop the next “big” technology. The Internet did develop from the military as a way to protect communication in the Cold War era, after all. Back then, I think it was much more common for the best and brightest to pursue careers in the military. That’s not the case anymore.</p>
<p>
I don’t think many transgender people share this view. I’m straight and I do not share this view. Discrimination is a very legitimate concern, and I think people have every right to be disappointed with it, especially transgender students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve heard this before, but I can’t see that actually happening. For one, aren’t the discriminatory policies determined by Congress, not the military? So shouldn’t we be producing more Congressmen if we want to effect change? The bigger point is that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was in place for 15+ years and all the leaders that Stanford and Berkeley and other liberal schools sent into the military weren’t able to effect change. Either that or they didn’t actually care.</p>
<p>There’s this hope that the people we produce in ROTC will change the discriminatory policies, but I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t think many of them care enough to try. In fact, I’ve heard some ROTC cadets say that discriminating against trans people makes sense because trans people are mentally ill. That’s the exact kind of person I don’t want Stanford to send into the military in a leadership position. Stanford is not as accepting as it purports to be, at least not toward trans people, and the transphobia also plays out in ROTC, even at Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that’s fundamentally different, since the people who are going into these companies already wanted to do that; Stanford didn’t make them do it, but rather attracted them to the school because of its offerings and helped them to reach their goal.</p>
<p>Same with ROTC: the students that Stanford produces in ROTC mostly already wanted to do ROTC. I think SunDiego is saying that the military derails their career because they get sick of the military and inevitably want to go back to being a normal civilian. I don’t know how true that is, but there’s definitely some truth to it given the nature of the military: serving and then going back. Few people devote their entire lives to it. But most of the people who are starting/joining these tech companies are probably going to be doing it for the rest of their lives. At the very least, they’re much more likely to stick to that than a military person is to stick to the military - it’s just the difference in the nature of having a civilian career vs. having a military career. I’d also argue that they’re sticking to it because they like it.</p>
<p>And I don’t think it’s fair to say that these tech companies have a “marginal benefit” to society. Not only is it an unfair standard to set that every company has to have some tangible mission that benefits society, but it ignores the bigger point: each tech company creates some economic value and stimulates the economy. Lord knows we need that. Even Farmville contributes to that.</p>
<p>
Whether ROTC sends liberally educate people into the military (where ROTC directly applies) or congress (where ROTC can educate future politicians on military activities), ROTC has a benefit here. Perhaps the reason why DADT was not repealed for a long time is that there were not enough students from top schools like Stanford in military or politics; I think there’s a critical mass needed to effectuate change. Yeah I may be optimistic in my hopes, because some university students do have very pernicious ideologies imo. But the only way to find out is to reinstate ROTC at top schools like Stanford and Harvard. </p>
<p>
Stanford is one of the most accepting places I’ve ever been around for liberal (party) ideology. I am literally scared to bring up my views on abortion here. People mock their peers for praying. Maybe not to their face, but behind their backs. If Stanford does not accept any group, it is conservatives. With regards to liberal causes like supporting gay marriage, at worst the student body is outwardly indifferent (those against gay marriage would commit social suicide in publicizing such views at Stanford). With regards to trans acceptance, there’s always gonna be a few bad apples in the bunch. You can’t have everybody support campus-wide liberal (party) hegemony, after all. </p>
<p>
Maybe that’s what some of them wanted to do. Who knows? All I know is that the culture here is definitely one where doing a startup > serving this nation. In other words, Stanford does little to sway people from Silicon Valley’s influence. </p>
<p>
As someone on the fence about doing ROTC at Stanford, I can say that having to travel to other schools for classes was a major deterrent. Furthermore, ROTC classes from what I understand would be open to the entire student body. If I were around for it, I definitely would have taken advantage of that. </p>
<p>
Really? Because from what I hear from my friends doing this stuff, their attitude is work really hard for a few years, get rich, then retire. Maybe they stick in it though. </p>
<p>
I think it’s very fair. Yes, these companies do create some economic value. But I do believe that they detract from other things we should be focusing on. If you take all the programmers at Zynga and focus their energies on technology that could say, improve education in America, great things could happen? But education is not where the money is at. Rather it funds trivial online applications. If you read some of the stuff that is getting funding these days, it is crazy. And some other engineers trying to create a device that can help provide clean water to impoverished people in Africa are likely left out of this cash orgy. </p>
<p>My views are obviously influenced by my belief that free markets do not result in the most beneficial allocation of resources. You will not be able to convince me otherwise, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Sorry if I made any blaring grammatical or spelling errors. I’m kinda drunk :).</p>
<p>
One word: money. Sure coding is kinda fun. But so are millions of other things. The difference is that CS at Stanford is a surefire way to make bank. Film production at Stanford is not. </p>
<p>And one phrase: CS is specialized training that eliminates many career paths. </p>
<p>
You don’t know this. I don’t know you’re wrong though. One thing I do know: our country would never have come to dominate the world if it were not for our many military successes. </p>
<p>After the fall of the Soviet Union, our military has been slow to reform. The best way to speed this up is to inject a new generation of military leadership, not eradicating military funding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I’ve heard that before, but can’t take it seriously - to me it seems pretty arrogant that we, Stanford, the big boys, must step into the game for change to happen. Considering how few our ROTC cadets number - which likely will change little once they’re welcomed back - it just doesn’t make much sense to conclude that we’d be able to do something that other elite universities with ROTC programs, like Berkeley, couldn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that Stanford is accepting of trans people. Sure, it’s a lot more accommodating than the general population, but there’s a lot of latent transphobia on campus, something well-acknowledged in the trans community. I can’t even count how many people during the ROTC debate would show their transphobia, sometimes flagrantly, by making arguments like “trans people are mentally ill and ROTC’s policies are legitimate” and so on.</p>
<p>I agree with you that conservatives are stigmatized on campus, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then there’s the Anscombe Society that was just started at Stanford; others believed the prop 8 was right on the mark and did extensive flyering on campus to help prop 8. So “at worst” they are openly bigoted, at best just okay with discrimination even if they aren’t bigoted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe that’s their hope - but few are actually able to do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Arguments like this never make sense, because by that logic, we should never focus on anything but what the most pressing, dire needs are. Yes, we should devote resources to things like education, but to suggest that that’s the only endeavor that deserves attention is patently unrealistic. These companies do fill a need; after all, if there were no demand, there would be no supply. (That’s different in a bubble, but we aren’t in a bubble, at least not like before.)</p>
<p>In the end, though, there are undeniable, fundamental differences between preparing students for a CS career vs. preparing them for the military. These differences make any comparison only superficial, but at the heart they’re just not the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, I agree with this to an extent, as I’m an outspoken critic of the CS community at Stanford, but at the same time, it’s unfair of you to paint all CS majors that way. They aren’t all in it for the money, though the decrease in # CS majors during the dot-com bubble and the increase as it becomes profitable again do suggest that many are in it for the money.</p>