ROTC and the University

The past year has seen a new government ROTC policy with almost each succeeding week. The Air Force first stated that only pre-flight ROTC members would be commissioned, then reversed its stand, and now has back-tracked to its original position. Army policies have at times seemed equally contradictory. In the midst of these conflicting rumors, the Faculty's Committee on Educational Policy begins a necessary re-evaluation of the place of the ROTC at Harvard.

Currently, a student must take one extra course during his four years in the College if he is a member of an ROTC unit. In the Harvard curriculum of four courses per year, ROTC credits fill 23 percent of the total course requirements, far more than they do at most universities. The idea underlying the University's four course requirement is that by working at such a rate, a student will be able to devote more time to each course. Consequently, the intellectual caliber of Harvard courses is ordinarily higher. And when the military courses are compared with these other University courses, the academic deficiencies in the ROTC curriculum become glaringly apparent. In the place of ideas, the services offer only masses of fact. Granted, the memorization of these facts in many cases requires as much time each weeks as other courses, but even the staunchest advocates of an ROTC program do not claim that the military courses contribute much toward a student's intellectual growth.

There are two ways to remove the discrepancy between the ROTC courses and regular studies. Enough material of a "liberal" nature can be added to raise the program to an academic level approaching that of the rest of the College. Or the ROTC courses can be limited to practical material, with credit reduced and no pretense of intellectual equality. The first of these measures is unsound, for it would place too heavy a load on the student. The ROTC's are designed to turn out capable officer material for the services--to do this, they must continue to offer the factual material now in the courses. These facts represent the particular skills a military man must have in his background before he can begin to make the decisions and accept the responsibilities that come with a commission. If sufficient course material about military history or war policy were added to bring the course up to the level of College courses, far too much time would be required.

The second solution is the only practical one. ROTC subjects should be pared to eliminate all material not required by government specifications. The University should then give one-half course credit for each year of ROTC taken. Te keep a student from being credit-shy if he is dropped from the ROTC after his first two years, the University should strongly recommend that he take the extra course the government provides free in either of these years. Many would take an extra course each year, as they often do now.

Military authorities argue that if ROTC credits are cut, the number of applications would fall off drastically and the quality of students entering the units might also decline. But this need not be the case. The post-war swell in the number of ROTC men came with the mounting fears caused by the Korean hostilities. Although the danger is by no means over, there is no longer the sense of urgency that characterized the first two years of the 'fifties, when it seemed a case of join the ROTC or be drafted out of College. Students who join now do so only after carefully deciding that they will profit by the move; an additional required course would not be a serious factor in their decision. And the top men--the men the military says it wants--would certainly be taking an extra course each year anyway.

The ROTC has a place in the University, Harvard would be shirking its responsibilities if it did not continue to turn out capable officer material for the nation's wartime needs. But the ROTC should not take its place at the expense of a large part of a student's liberal education.