Critiques of military’s purpose, place on campus draw stern rebuttal

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR | letters | THE ROTC’S ROLE

October 29, 2011

Yale sophomore Andrew Hendricks, wearing an Air Force ROTC uniform, adjusts… (Jessica Hill/Associated…)

THIS IS in regard to two letters published Oct. 27 in response to your earlier editorial on Brown University’s decision not to reinstate ROTC.

In “Opinion dismisses judgment of many on campus,’’ William Keach, a professor at Brown, asserts that the university cannot directly alter military policy and culture, but that only holds true when the university elects not to engage in educating leaders who rise to define that culture — a shameful choice that several of the country’s leading universities have made.

Contrary to Keach’s view, the recent wars he indicates he disagrees with were not initiated by military leaders, as that is not their role. Instead, these wars were initiated by political leaders, most of whom had not spent time in the military. Several of these leaders attended universities of similar caliber to Brown.

Keach’s vision for the university during “a time of war’’ — to preserve a commitment to intellectual independence, debate (though presumably not on military matters), and open-mindedness — sounds a lot like the story of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning.

As for the second letter, “Not the place to teach art of killing,’’ Berge Tatian’s lack of understanding of the purpose of the military was all the more remarkable coming just 10 years after 9/11. Trivializing the need for qualified people to safeguard our national security, and describing education in this area as teaching the “art of killing people,’’ reflects a profound superficiality of thought. Suggesting that teaching “the subject matter of civilization’’ can be done without recognizing issues concerning the security of nations is, to put it kindly, misguided.

Gustave H. Murby

Medfield

The writer is a graduate of the US Military Academy at West Point.

Subject is service and safeguarding freedom, not learning to kill

IN THE Oct. 27 letter “Not the place to teach art of killing,’’ Berge Tatian commended Brown University for banning ROTC from campus because he didn’t believe Brown should be teaching its students to kill. As a former Army officer who was enrolled in ROTC at the University of Massachusetts, and who graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point, I have to correct Tatian.

ROTC and the service academies do not teach people to kill. They prepare young men and women to serve their country as officers in our armed forces. They teach their students to defend the Constitution of the United States, and to willingly place themselves in harm’s way to safeguard the liberties and freedoms of their fellow citizens.

Tatian can rest assured knowing that because of ROTC, the service academies, and the brave men and women who enlist in our armed forces, he will continue to enjoy the freedom to write letters to the editor.

Stephen A. Thompson

Yarmouth Port