Town Square

Post a New Topic

Stanford's Hennessy updates faculty on ROTC

Original post made on Nov 12, 2011

In a briefing to the faculty on Thursday -- the day before Veterans Day -- Stanford University President John Hennessy presented an update on the university's plans to re-establish a Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) program at Stanford.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, November 11, 2011, 4:51 PM

Comments (31)

Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 12, 2011 at 10:33 am

> or joining a possible consortium of south bay universities to
> start a ROTC program

This makes a lot of sense. It would also pay for Stanford and the other schools to look into distance learning technology as an alternative to "on campus" education. Stanford has all of the bandwidth it needs to provide the essentials, and plenty of talent to develop the software, should any be needed. Additionally, this sort of capability would be applicable to schools all over the country which might be too small to offer ROTC to their students.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

But what if ROTC does not want Stanford?


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 12, 2011 at 9:01 pm

Following upon the new dominant push for zero budgeting

1/ Zero budgeting for Egypt and Israel--if they continue to be not in compliance with fundamental American interests they both should zero American tax payers money

2/ American universities--if they do not actively support and honor ROTC they should get no tax payer money

Enough is enough


Posted by Crap peddler, a resident of Community Center
on Nov 12, 2011 at 10:12 pm

What does israel and egypt have to do with ROTC at stanford? Nothing. Bit when you are pushing an anti-israel, anti-muslim agenda any thread is fair game. Forcing ROTC onto every campus is another crazy idea from our resident crackpot.


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 12, 2011 at 10:50 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 13, 2011 at 7:52 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I remember Stanford demeaning the academic content of ROTC while extolling Black Gay Women's Studies. Their other job prep courses are still O.K., but I would prefer our officers be educated elsewhere.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 13, 2011 at 7:58 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Sharon, our aid to Israel is not just out of the kindness of our heart; it is because of a promise we made to Israel when we forced them to give up Gaza, that we would make up their loss of Gaza oil.
The productive Gaza Strip was converted into just an extension of the other Palestinian refugee camps.


Posted by Crap peddler, a resident of Community Center
on Nov 13, 2011 at 9:32 am

Proof, walter re stanford and the ROTC? Times change and people change. Time for you to change.


Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 13, 2011 at 9:45 am

> Times change and people change.

And what proof can anyone prove that Stanford has changed its attitudes toward the American military? What about SLAC? What is SLAC's view about doing "defense work"?

It's hard to believe that Staford grads will ever join the military in significant numbers so that people will see that their treacherous behavior over the last forty years actually demonstrates real change on their part.


Posted by Crap peddler, a resident of Community Center
on Nov 13, 2011 at 1:49 pm

Go digital-you are making the charges, you need to provide the proof. How many college grads join the military in general ? What treacherous behavior are you referring to? Write the change from your initial post


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If burning down NROTC and tossing ROTC off campus was not treacherous it was at least dismissive of the military. I would not let ROTC back until Stanford made a sincere apology for her past sins.


Posted by Crap peddler, a resident of Community Center
on Nov 13, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Have you made a since apology for your past sins, walter. Of course we still have no proof for any of walters claims. Times change, people change, attitudes change. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Sharon, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 13, 2011 at 8:56 pm



The zero based Federal budget should be applied to universities as well as alien nations--Egypt-Israel-Pakistan

If you do not further American fundamental interest you get no money.

Period.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 14, 2011 at 6:29 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my past sins and anticipate future ones.


Posted by Perspective, a resident of Meadow Park
on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:37 am

Walter: Thanks for the great laugh. I needed it. I will remember your line...it was good.


Posted by Response, a resident of another community
on Nov 14, 2011 at 10:32 am

Web Link


Posted by Crap peddler, a resident of Community Center
on Nov 14, 2011 at 10:53 am

Response-not really the proof we are looking for. Walter claims that stanford burned down the NROTC (i.e. The administration). While your links spouted that out burned down it does not show who did it. Times change, people change attitudes change. Walter chooses to live in a time warp, where slights from 50 years ago need to apologized for. Some people have no forgiveness in their hearts


Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 14, 2011 at 12:57 pm

Just curious - Stanford students don't really seem to be the type to be interested in ROTC - how many students are we talking about?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 14, 2011 at 5:14 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

In blaming Stanford I blamed all of them, students and administration.


Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:10 am

> Just curious - Stanford students don't really seem to be the type
> to be interested in ROTC - how many students are we talking about?

At the moment, probably fewer than a hundred.

The Military is only so large, and could not absorb all of the college grads in the US (on a yearly basis), even if they wanted to join. The US Census shows that only about 4% of the US population has been in the Military, to give you some sense of just how many people in the general population we are talking about. (During WWII, there were about 16M men and women in uniform, against a population of about 120M.) Spread across the 3500 US campuses, this reduces to a small number of men and women who would can be effectively enrolled in ROTC.

We need to remember that the quality, and effectiveness, of all organizations starts "at the top". So, the better educated the Military's officers, the better the Military will be, over time. (Some is true for it's Non-Comms, too.) The issue here is that the Stanford Faculty, and Administration, seems to believe it has a right to deny the students who want to become officers via the ROTC path any opportunity to do so on the Stanford Campus. These same people, on the other hand, believe that they have a right to US Government money, via grants, gifts, etc.--while at the same time saying that they have no obligation to contribute to the defense of the Country by forcing the ROTC programs off the campuses.



Posted by Really, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:11 am

So Walter has no problem blaming people without any proof or evidence. Good to that our uber patriot has so much contempt for our judicial system when it suits his needs. One wonders what Walter fought for during his stint in the military- certainly not freedom and justice for all


Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:41 am

> How many college grads join the military in general ?

This is a hard number to provide without having access to the Military's personnel records. World affairs and US responses dictate the size of the Military. During WWII, there were about 16M men/women in uniform. At that time, about 12% of the inductees had college degrees, or had attended some college. The demand for officers, particularly aviators, outstripped supply. Most of the pilots/navigators were not college graduates, unlike the situation today.

During the Korean War, and the Vietnam Conflict, the Military's size was about 3.5M on active duty. Today, the Military is about 1.5M men/women, with a reserve component of about 1.5M. In general, the size of the Military has been decreasing since the end of WWII.

> What treacherous behavior are you referring to?

Walter has pointed out a number of times that the burning of the NROTC building as an example of Stanford treachery. The failure of the Faculty to condemn this act, and to generally be supportive of the students who were involved, is an example. The subsequent forcing of all ROTCs off the Campus is another example. The continued refusal of the Faculty to rescind their previous decision stands as evidence of their continued treachery. Since 1900, over 100M people have been killed by Communist regimes, in one way or another. The US has been the only Western "power" that stood up against this consummate evil. The behavior of American students during the Vietnam conflict was reprehensible. Unfortunately, the Soviets did not allow many Westerners into their country, and the American press was easily "bought off".

Even today, it's difficult to believe that students anywhere, including Stanford, can accurately detail the history, and the casualty counts, of the "isms" of the 20th Century (Communism, Nazi-ism, Social-ism). Given the charter of any institution of higher education—this institutionalized ignorance constitutes a clear failure on their part to contribute to the defense of their country, and culture.

He following is an example of the clearly biased, and ignorant, views of one Stanford student, that shows how lopsided a Stanford "education" can be:

Web Link

Interesting that when the Clinton Administration attacked Serbia, or the Obama Administration attacked Libya (both using NATO as a front), there was not a peep out of "the Farm".


Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:54 am

And here is an unofficial chronology of the Stanford ROTC debacle:

Web Link


Posted by svatoid, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Nov 15, 2011 at 7:58 am

"Walter has pointed out a number of times that the burning of the NROTC building as an example of Stanford treachery."
So who was arrested and prosecuted for burning the NROTC building? If no one, then it seems to me that it is against the American way to accuse everyone and anyone associated with Stanford as being guilty. That is not what our country stands for and what our military fights for. Or do some people believe that only when it suits their treacherous needs?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 15, 2011 at 9:53 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

The Stanfoo professor who told the crowd "Burn down the ROTC building" just before the crowd did just that was stripped of his tenure. The structure was not, however, rebuilt. The divestiture was clothed in ambiguity rather than being explicitly for urging the burning.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Nov 15, 2011 at 11:05 am

"The Stanfoo professor who told the crowd "Burn down the ROTC building" just before the crowd did just that was stripped of his tenure. "
Where is Stanfoo?? Walter must be confused and mean Stanford. So one of the people involved was punished.
Times have changed, Walter. Time to put your bitterness behind.


Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2011 at 1:59 pm

> Times have changed

Really .. how have they changed?

just a couple years ago Bush Administration Officials were condemned by a Stanford Professor, who has been condemning the US Military for about thirty years--

Web Link

Some Stanford faculty and students said they were outraged by Rumsfeld's appointment, saying he lacks the academic credentials to be at the Hoover Institution and criticizing his central role in the Iraq war.

"I'm appalled," said Stanford history Professor Barton Bernstein. "He is a profoundly immoral man. The Hoover Institution has long been a refuge for right-wing Republicans, but what makes this unusually disgraceful is Rumsfeld's involvement in a war started for reasons unprovable, unproven and demonstrably wrong."
---

So where is the change?




Posted by svatoid, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:09 pm

"just a couple years ago Bush Administration Officials were condemned by a Stanford Professor, who has been condemning the US Military for about thirty years--"

Note that Rumsfield got a position at Stanford. The main point is does that professor have the right to criticize the military? Of course he does. What is our military fighting to defend if not our freedoms--one of which is the right to criticize (even if goes against the wallis Doctrine)

"So where is the change?"
Look around and you will see the change. But why does this professor and others have to change their opinions to satisfy sunshine patriots and chicken hawks. This is america not some dictatorship where we have to adhere to the directives of Walter Wallis-like leaders.


Posted by Go-Digital, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:50 pm

> The main point is does that professor have the right to
> criticize the military?

By calling the Secretary of Defense "immoral"? By what rational does any one who teaches at Stanford become "moral", and those that defend the country in ways that yoyos like Bernstein don't like become "immoral"?

Bernstein has always attacked the key decision makers on a personal level, trying to make them out to be monsters. He has never, by the war, attacked the enemies of the US with the same vigor, if at all.
Not really any different in many ways from inciting students to burn down ROTC buildings, or University President's offices.

The faculty of that University would like nothing better than to see the Hoover institution removed from Campus. That's the proof that nothing much has changed.


Posted by svatoid, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Nov 15, 2011 at 2:59 pm

"By calling the Secretary of Defense "immoral"? By what rational does any one who teaches at Stanford become "moral", and those that defend the country in ways that yoyos like Bernstein don't like become "immoral"?"
The point is not what this professor said but rather whether he had the right to say it. What does our military fight for if not the freedom to say what one wants.

"Bernstein has always attacked the key decision makers on a personal level, trying to make them out to be monsters. He has never, by the war, attacked the enemies of the US with the same vigor, if at all."
Without getting in to the facts about what Bernstein has or has not said--the question again is does he have the right to say it. Is that not what our country is about? Freedom to say what one pleases? No one is above criticism--even if they are criticizing the sacred cows of the military a la Walter Wallis.

"Not really any different in many ways from inciting students to burn down ROTC buildings, or University President's offices."
Quite different, but the understanding of the difference is beyond you.



"The faculty of that University would like nothing better than to see the Hoover institution removed from Campus. That's the proof that nothing much has changed."
Care to provide some proof for that??Numbers? a study? A poll?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Nov 15, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

svatoid, you have every right to criticize me, and I have every right to criticize you and/or Stanfoo.
Stanfoo did punish the Professor, but still ousted ROTC. This ouster was just an over expression of the general attitude that "Gentlemen" do not resort to violence. This certainty that everything can be resolved by discussion is correct only as long as you are willing to accept mastery by others not so reluctant to coerce.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The dress code
By Jessica T | 21 comments | 1,864 views

September food and drink goings on
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,238 views

Two Days to Save This Dog?
By Cathy Kirkman | 15 comments | 1,233 views

. . . People will never forget how you made them feel.
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,231 views

It Depends... Disguising Real Characters in Fiction
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 399 views