Town Square

Post a New Topic

Stanford faculty votes to invite ROTC back

Original post made on Apr 29, 2011

On an issue that has sharply divided Stanford students, the university's Faculty Senate Thursday voted decisively to invite the Reserve Officers' Training Corps back onto campus for the first time since the 1970s.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 29, 2011, 9:39 AM

Comments (24)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good job, Faculty Senate!
a resident of Palo Verde
on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:46 am

The Stanford Faculty Senate got this one right.
If we don't want to relinquish this country to the ignorant, then we must educate. It will be better for everyone to have Stanford liberally educated officers in our military. It will be better for the LGBT community in the long rung. We need military officers who lived in a dorm with a wide range of citizens and who learned from top notch professors, who were encouraged to THINK during their time in college. Other Stanford students will also benefit from an expanded education that includes knowledge about our country's military.
Good decision, Stanford!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Embarrassing
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2011 at 10:59 am

That there were nine dissenting votes.

As to the opponents, Sorry that you feel protecting our country should take second place to identity politics. Guess you probably wouldn't have supported our military against the Nazis in WWII then. We didn't let in women, had blatant racial discrimination, and the thought of gays serving openly would have been inconceivable


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 29, 2011 at 3:04 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Is ROTC too good for Stanfoo? I kinda think so.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Served-With-Pride
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 29, 2011 at 4:31 pm

> We need military officers who lived in a dorm with a wide range
> of citizens and who learned from top notch professors,

One can only wonder if this poster has any idea what the military is all about, and what war is all about? Answer--War is about killing so they you, and your country, does not have to die. It's not about "hooking up" with "someone you love", or "being all that you can be". It is not a 3-4 year taxpayer-paid vacation. It's about sacrificing for your country, and your country's future.

Web Link

During World War II, an estimated 50 percent of undergraduate men at Stanford participated in ROTC. The postwar pinnacle was in 1956, when 1,100 students were officer trainees. The ranks gradually began to thin, and by the time the Senate acted 13 years later, ROTC numbers had shrunk to a few dozen.

"In 1968 and '69, there was a complete metamorphosis in the way ROTC was viewed," says Barry Hennings, '70, MBA '72, an ROTC graduate who participated in the program from 1966 to 1970. "In 1966, the Armed Services were given time during orientation to pitch the merits of ROTC. Two years later, antiwar protesters burned down the Navy ROTC building, and we were being physically attacked on campus."
---

Astounding how twenty years made such a difference in how Stanford students and faculty viewed the world. It was OK to fight the Germans and Japanese, but not OK to fight the Soviets, and the Communist Chinese via this proxy war in Vietnam. Wonder if the Standford "community" believes that fighting the North Koreans (and the Chinese Communists) was OK?

When the war was over, and the killing started over in Vietnam, and Cambodia, there wasn't a peep from the creeps that "protested" the war. The Stanford professors didn't seem to concerned about Pol Pot, and the more-of-less destruction of the educated classes in Cambodia, or the Cultural Revolution in China during the 1970s. But they sure seemed to have a lot to say about the US fighting these killers and thugs!

Walter is right. The ROTC is too good for Stanford. The Military has done very well without Stanford for decades .. so who needs them?

Students who want to go into the military who are Stanford grads can join the Reserves, or they can go to OCS after graduation. It's nice to have four years of quality preparation behind you, but the real training starts once you are commissioned, and posted to a company/ship somewhat out there in the real world.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Berkeley ROTC Grad
a resident of Mountain View
on Apr 30, 2011 at 8:42 am

This is not a story. Cal Berkeley has had ROTC for over a century and continues to have it. Stanford just recognized that it is hurting students by not allowing them an opportunity of a career path that leads to top positions at the national and corporate level. Military cadets and officers are put through physical, mental, moral and intellectual tests of stamina from a young age. If law schools and business schools adopted just some of ROTC's philosophy, just maybe we would not have so many lawyers and CEOs mucking up our nation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thank you Served with Pride
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on May 1, 2011 at 9:55 am

Served with Pride: Great post. Thank you.

The answer to your rhetorical question over why there was great Academia support to fight Germany and Japan tyrants, and chronicle their horrific abuses, and not to fight the later Communist tyrants and chronicle their abuses, is obvious, as I am sure you know.

I really don't know how people who think the way many of those who populate our universities can sleep at night.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ima Impressed
a resident of College Terrace
on May 1, 2011 at 10:40 am

Looks like a string of thumbs up for ROTC! Outstanding. Hopefully with Hoover and now ROTC there is at least hope for some real balance and diversity on campus.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HUTCH 7.62
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 1, 2011 at 11:51 am

Go ROTC! nice to see the liberals are loosing there 'iron fist' like grip on the peninsula


 +   Like this comment
Posted by We're loosing
a resident of Southgate
on May 1, 2011 at 12:44 pm

"the liberals are loosing there 'iron fist' "
Will they have remedial spelling classes for their supporters?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on May 1, 2011 at 1:13 pm

This is an exciting new era at Stanford! It is long overdue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Obama fan
a resident of Stanford
on May 2, 2011 at 12:13 am

Another pathetic attempt by walter to denigrate stanford. Can't get the name right, walter? Of close walter, our uber patriot was recently quoted supporting traitors to the union. I would note complain about stanford and their stance on the ROTC given your support of the confederacy, walter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 2, 2011 at 6:45 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

As usual, Obama fan can't get it right. There were alternatives to killing 600,000 soldiers and civilians. Even an old infantryman can be excused for preferring a peaceful solution.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 2, 2011 at 9:04 am

"There were alternatives to killing 600,000 soldiers and civilians. Even an old infantryman can be excused for preferring a peaceful solution."
Why does our super patriot, Walter, continue to beat the drum in favor of the 19th century version of Al Qeida (a terrorist organization bent on destroying the USA)--the confederacy?
Perhaps Walter should read his history books and see that it was the traitorous south that started the war.
Seems to me that sunshine patriots like Walter should not be attacking Stanford for their stance on ROTC, given his obvious support of the confederacy and slavery.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by HUTCH 7.62
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 2, 2011 at 11:25 am

@We're losing

Will they have remedial spelling classes for their supporters?

Sorry the Public Education I got from the Palo Alto School District is creeping out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 3, 2011 at 8:39 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

svatoid, can a whole people be traitors? Treason is the act of an individual. Succession is the act of a people. You, svatoid, seem a fan of One Man, One Vote, One Time. I believe in the right to change one's mind. You see in my words a defense of slavery, and yet you defend another form of slavery in your own words. You can not have it both ways.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 3, 2011 at 8:47 am

"svatoid, can a whole people be traitors? Treason is the act of an individual. Succession is the act of a people. You, svatoid, seem a fan of One Man, One Vote, One Time. I believe in the right to change one's mind. You see in my words a defense of slavery, and yet you defend another form of slavery in your own words. You can not have it both ways."

Walter continues to support the 19th century traitors, the confederacy (and yes, all the confederates can be considered traitors since they attacked the USA and tried to destroy it.)
Walter loves to play the super patriot--attacking those that do not march in lock step with his views on this country, yet he has no problem defending a group of people that attempted to destroy this country (probably because they were white southern good old boys.)
Now he is trying to claim that I am defending another form of slavery!!! Can you beat that example of nerve??? Walter's defends the confederacy and the institution of slavery. His views on minorities are well documented on this forum.
Give it up, Walter. Trying to accuse me of the same despicable behavior that you display is not going to do it. You have been exposed. we now all see your true colors. Maybe you should move to North Korea, where you had your glory days in the "military".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Thank you, Served with pride
a resident of Greater Miranda
on May 3, 2011 at 9:13 am

svatoid, I suggest you learn a bit more about the history of how the civil war came to pass.

I also suggest that you refrain from assuming what is behind words, in this case you are trying to assert that Walter was defending slavery. It shows a lack of cognitive development that is unbecoming. By your logic, or lack of, our entire American Revolution was an act of trying to destroy the British Empire, treason etc ( which was, in fact, the British take on the revolution), not a rebellion against tyrants.

The defense of slavery you are doing is defending the ability of one group of people to take the money from another group against their will...in this case perhaps referring to taking money in fed grants from us who support ROTC, while having denied ROTC for the last 30 years to its students. Not sure what he is referring to, but you have to learn to think beyond the literal and right now into a big picture.

Nobody is defending slavery here. Walter is trying to teach about the historical path to civil war. And, as we age, we see "history" in the making, and can connect those dots on the path a lot easier.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 3, 2011 at 9:26 am

"svatoid, I suggest you learn a bit more about the history of how the civil war came to pass."
Wat part of the confederate traitors attacked the USA to start the war and tried to destroy this country is hard to understand. Why are people excusing that traitorous behavior?

"It shows a lack of cognitive development that is unbecoming. "
ooh. I see I struck a nerve, otherwise why that kind of comment.
As for Walter's defense of slavery, read his other posts on this forum.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2011 at 5:08 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

svatoid, would you shoot someone for a parking violation? After all, the Vehicle Code is the law of the land and anyone who violates the Law of the Land is a traitor through and through.
To aver that the only way to resolve the slavery/succession issue was to kill 600,000 people is to place a low value on individual life. Other indefensible acts like selective cancellation of the Bill of Rights I leave to others to defend or attack, but svetoid's version of patriotism is as close to the Divine Right of Kings as I would like t see. I can conceive of acts by government I would not support.
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." is as true today as it was when originally asserted.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 4, 2011 at 10:15 am

Walter is comparing his support of a treasonous act by a group of traitors-the attack on the USA and the attempt to destroy the union by the confedracy with a parking violation. The traitorous confederates chose to go to war. They chose to try to destroy our country. Defending these people shows the hypocrisy of walter when it comes to patriotism. Of a person of color or certain religions had done this then walter would be calling for blood. But when white christian good old boys do it, walter jumps to their defense. Walters version of patriotism has been exposed. Support of the confederacy and slavery is despicable. Note how walter never stresses the issue of who actually started the war. Walter should now quit trying to defend the19th century al qeida.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Good job, Faculty Senate!
a resident of Palo Verde
on May 4, 2011 at 12:22 pm

UGH!!! What happened to the ROTC thread?
A couple of lunatics take over any civilized discourse.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 4, 2011 at 4:09 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Hey Svatoid, how about them Indians and their wars against the US? The Seminoles never surrendered. Incidentally, how about it, you finally capitalized your name.
As for Good job, I still believe the ROTC is too good for Stanfoo. And when you scoff at 600,000 deaths, remember about half of those were Union soldiers. Union soldiers who had better to do than to die.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on May 4, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Walter, walter, walter. Our resident uber patriot does not think stanford should have the ROTC? Obviously he is not impressed with stanfords patriotism. Too bad. I doubt walters patriotic credentials. I expect that next he will be making excuses for the OKC bombers. Remember who started the civil war, the traitorous white confederates. Blame them for the 600000 deaths


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on May 5, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Think of mine as an intelligent patriotism, not as a blind, Washington can do no wrong patriotism.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Mixx, Scott's Seafood replacement, opens in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,279 views

Ten Steps to Get Started with Financial Aid
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,600 views

All Parking Permits Should Have a Fee
By Steve Levy | 21 comments | 1,475 views

For the Love of Pie
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,334 views

Repeating and “You” Sentences
By Chandrama Anderson | 4 comments | 889 views