To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
Since the CRIMSON has shown at least a passing interest in the ROTC issue at Harvard, and in view of your editorial, "Curbing ROTC" which was in the edition of 5 February (". . . yesterday's decision should not be the final episode of the ROTC debate here"), I leap at this chance to supply fuel for the pyre. Specifically, I beseech you to furnish me a medium to express my THANKS:
To The Boston Globe, for perpetuating the myth that the Professor of Military Science (Col. Pell, in case anyone missed his name) is my boss. The Globe noted that the PMS is ". . . the commander of Harvard's ROTC units." Col. Pell does not represent the United States Air Force in any capacity; I represent the USAF at Harvard.
To Professor Albritton, ABSOLUTELY the only faculty member who publicly acknowledged the fact that there REALLY IS a separate department known as the Department of the Air Force, but after all, gee whiz, fellows, we haven't been "The Army Air Corp" since 1947. I honestly don't believe the Navy has EVER been a part of the Army (although I understand the Navy has its own Army--but don't tell that to the Marines).
To Professor Beer, who trembles for his colleagues. I, too, tremble, though for different reasons. As Marya Mannes put it, More in Anger.
To the SDS (Students for the DESTRUCTION of Society), for popularizing the neologism "ROT-C," with emphasis on the first syllable. I would like to add, for Professor Lipset and others of his ilk, that there really is no need for a 'student referendum" since 2-3% of the students seem to be calling the shots anyway.
To several faculty members at the meeting of 4 February for their inspiring figures of speech having to do with rurgs and umbrellas, sponges and surgical scissors, military-industrial complex (an anachronism I associate with the Eisenhower era), bastard (or was it illegitimate?) problems, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
To other faculty members, for a pragmatic (does that mean practical or officious) exercise in the use of logical fallacies at the Faculty Meeting of 4 February. How grand it was to witness a pedagogical display of the honorable non sequitur, the venerable syllogism (in the sense of "a subtle, specious, or crafty argument"), the abundance of ad hominems and post hoc, ergo propter hoc's. "Eloquent" was the evaluation made by one speaker for the pedants who preceded him. No wonder Professor Beer trembles twice for his colleagues. Many, many thanks for an enlightening exposure to "academic freedom."
And last, but far from least, to the CEP for its valiant efforts at "due process." Even though it appeared difficult for some faculty members to differentiate between the SFAC Resolution and the CEP Resolution after Professor Wilson had his say, somewhere, in the back of my mind (or perhaps in my viscera) I do feel there was a difference.
And so, to Veritas let us add sic transit gloria mundi. W. R. Folk, Major UNITED STATES AIR FORCE Professor of Aerospace Studies
P.S. Would you believe Harvard has THREE--count them--THREE Military Departments? We have the Army (as you well know), the Navy, and the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. Imagine that! "ROT-C" is somewhat difficult to generalize and simplify, just like everything else in life! On that score, see "To Live With Complexity" by Dean Franklin L. Ford, Harvard Today, Autumn 1968. But then, who really cares about facts or intellectual honesty. Lets get rid of the fascist-pig-warmongers, let George worry about National Security, and give attention to something serious, like parietals.