Letters to the Editor

Banning ROTC would hurt Princetonians' record of service

Regarding 'Referendum sought on Army ROTC' (Thursday, April 7):

I read with some concern the article regarding efforts by the USG to force the Reserve Officers Training Program (ROTC) off campus. As an alumnus, ROTC program graduate and someone who could not have attended Princeton without the scholarship that ROTC provided, I speak from personal experience. For a variety of additional reasons, I believe that the effort is misguided and will result in harm to the University greater than its proponents realize.

First, the law. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, whether you agree or not, is the law of the land. Period. Penalizing a program and fellow students because you don't like the law is misguided and foolish. If you don't like the law, petition the administration or the Congress to change it.

Second, the impact upon Princeton students who wish to serve their country will be severe, lifelong and permanent. For Princeton, a school with a rich tradition of service to the nation, to prevent its students — particularly those, like me, who are minorities or, otherwise, could not afford the opportunity that Princeton offers — from "giving back" to their country is repugnant. Princeton graduates who have served their nation represent the finest of what Princeton gives back. With the increasing gap between those who attend elite universities and the rest of America, such a decision will only exacerbate the existence of an "us vs. them" society. You only have to read the recent PAW articles to know that many Princeton ROTC alumni are serving in our military and protecting the rights and blessings that so many in the United States take for granted.

Finally, as an alumni, I can assure you that I, other ROTC and many other alumni will no longer support Princeton through Annual Giving if the University supports this effort. At a time when we need our "best and brightest" in positions of real leadership, the prohibition of ROTC at Princeton will represent a significant break in Princeton's record of being in the nation's service. Andre Hollis '88

"Don't ask, don't tell" the only feasible policy

Regarding 'Referendum sought on Army ROTC' (Thursday, April 7):

Princeton, Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania were among the first college campuses to set up ROTC during World War I. This Princeton ROTC presence, in varying forms, continues, affording many Princeton students military scholarships, and a possible military career. ROTC has also proved complementary to Princeton's longstanding commitment to national service and defense of liberty around the world. Many Princetonians have died defending freedom, including Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. One need only look at the gold embossed names in Nassau Hall to reflect upon the ultimate sacrifices made. Many Princetonians were also killed at the World Trade Center as part of the ongoing war on global terror. What about their deaths? Who is to keep us in America safe now and in the future?

As a member of both the Class of 1969 and the last Air Force ROTC class at Princeton, I take great exception to the recent initiative to deprive Princeton students of the opportunity to participate in Army ROTC on campus. This initiative to abolish the Army ROTC presence is a disgrace to the memory of those Princeton graduates killed in action or senselessly dying at the towers.

For 36 years I have served in the Air Force and the Department of Defense. The Defense Department policy banning open acknowledgement of homosexuality is based upon military necessity and unit cohesion. "Don't ask, don't tell" is the best that can be expected. If the students who started this initiative choose not to serve their country in uniform that is their current right. But who are they to tell others that they cannot participate in ROTC?

Alexis DeTouqueville cautioned if the elites of a country are not willing to serve and if need be die for their country that country's existence may be doomed. Princeton University claims an elite status. But if Princeton graduates cannot militarily lead their country in wartime, the country will be worse off because of their non-service. We saw the proof of this in Vietnam. Had we had more Princeton undergraduates and other elites (like in WWII), the US military in Vietnam would have had perhaps more effective, balanced leadership.

Finally, whatever happened to "Princeton in the Nation's Service?" Has the moral fiber and ethical compass of Princeton undergraduates become so eroded that we have lost sight of the grand mission and even military tradition of Princeton? Eliminating ROTC on campus is both counter productive and counter intuitive to our core values as Americans. John F. H. Schenk '69