by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
As a classmate of Mr. Foote’s, I would like to present a different view of the ROTC debate here at Columbia. First of all, the vote that you refer to in The Daily Dish was not actually a referendum; it was a survey used to gauge student opinion. The actual decision will be made by the University Senators, who are not bound to vote in accordance with the results of the opinion poll.
Moving on to Mr. Foote’s op-ed — it, like all of the pro-ROTC arguments, seems to rely on two main points. One, that ROTC provides a way for low-income students to pay for a college education they couldn’t otherwise afford. This may be a valid point at some institutions, but not at one with such a large endowment as Columbia.
The second argument is that it will be easier to change the military’s discriminatory policies ‘from the inside,’ whatever that means. This argument seems to overlook the fact that ROTC already exists on myriad campuses that undoubtedly have gay students; what makes Mr. Foote and those who agree with him so sure that Columbia can succeed where so many other colleges have failed? On the other hand, I imagine if all universities said that they were banning ROTC until the military repealed DADT, that change would be effected rather quickly.
The Dish 