H-RPC Report--No Credit for ROTC

(The following are excerpts from the HPC report on the status of ROTC at Harvard.)

THE ROTC Departments have neither usual privileges nor usual responsibilities. The Departments of Military Science, Naval Science, and Aerospace Studies are clearly not full Academic Departments, nor are they simple Administrative Departments.

Though the nature of the Harvard Faculty's control over these courses is unclear, a few comments can be made on curricular developments since World War II.

The period of questioning following World War II raised two issues which have been primary in recent discussions of ROTC: 1) ROTC courses are pre-professional and thus inappropriate to a liberal arts education and 2) ROTC courses are not as rigorous as regular Harvard courses.

The issue of pre-professionalism is revelant only in a liberal arts institution. In his October 4, 1968 statement, Colonel Pell said:

Until the last decade of the 52-year partnership ["of school and government"]--on no serious scale until the last two years--was there any sign of discontent on the side of the academic community. There weren't many academicians who thought that academic credit for the military skills taught on in ROTC had suddenly become different from the skills taught by other professionals--the doctors, lawyers, engineers and business men--and should not be allowable for credit.

Colonel Pell's statement does not, however, apply to Harvard College, which is solely a liberal arts institution. In a liberal arts college, it is inappropriate to grant credit towards a A.B. degree for completion of courses of a solely pre-professional nature. The HRPC does not try to define what constitutes a solely pre professional course, nor do we attempt to define what constitutes appropriate rigor. Harvard normally seeks to make decisions in accordance with general guidelines rather than rigid definitions. The military training goal of the ROTC programs is a clear violation of the liberal arts norm.

The special status of the ROTC units as externally established and controlled Departments of Military Science, Naval Science, and Aerospace Studies represents an undesirable delegation of authority by the Harvard Faculty. It appears that Harvard must accept at least the prescribed course content of the ROTC programs as a condition for maintenance of the programs. If Harvard were to determine that some part of the minimum content was inappropriate for a liberal arts college or if Harvard were to demand that any particular course material should be included in the curriculum, it would have no assurance that its desires would be met. Harvard may always make suggestions regarding curriculum, but it is powerless to enforce its suggestions, short of rejecting the ROTC programs.

In practice, Harvard seems able to work well with the ROTC Units on an ad hoc basis and maintains ultimate power of approval or disapproval on course offerings and accreditation. Though the ROTC Units seem to have a great deal of freedom to work with Harvard on curricular matters, cooperation and a measure of freedom do not change the basic condition that Harvard has no assurance that its demands will always be met. It is our view that ultimately the ROTC Departments are the Defense Department, rather than true Harvard Academic or Administrative Departments.

NOT ONLY does Harvard have no assurance that its demands regarding academic content will be met, but Harvard does not have assurance that its demands regarding academic conduct will be met by the ROTC Units. All ROTC instructors selected by the Military Services, though their appointments are subject to Harvard approval (the senior officers are interviewed by the Dean of Harvard College) and Harvard may always request that an instructor be removed for just cause (no cause of such a request is known). The senior officers in each ROTC Unit are given the non-tenured rank of Professor. The bulk of the actual instruction is carried by other military personnel given the non-tenured rank of Associate or Assistant Professor.

The possibility of having regular Harvard Faculty members give regular Harvard courses which could be used to fulfill a ROTC requirement was raised in the period of questioning in the 1950's, although a problem arose regarding whether suitable courses would be given each year, or at least every other year. The discussion about having Harvard instructors give military science courses is founded upon the belief, in which the HRPC concurs, that military history and certain other military matters are valid academic endeavors within the liberal arts and general education spirits But problems arise when courses on military subjects are taught within the Harvard credit structure by military personnel selected by the Military Services for the express purpose of training potential officers.

In his comments at a recent Student-Faculty Advisory Council meeting Captain Moriatry of Navy ROTC made a useful distinction between operational courses (e.g., leadership, weapons systems, military operations and administration, marine navigation) and policy courses (e.g., U.S. foreign policy and the role of the military). He indicated that it is the Navy's belief that Harvard prefers to have its won regular professors teach courses on policy matters at Harvard. The Army, though, offers just such a course: Military Science 4hf--"Operations and Military Administration"--includes "a survey of the role of the United States in world affairs."

CAPTAIN Moriarty was also asked whether, because of his position as a military man, a ROTC instructor might feel restricted in the freedom to express views in conflict with an official national policy. He indicated that a ROTC instructor might feel so restricted. The possibility that a ROTC instructor might be so restricted is incompatible with the spirit of academic freedom.

The Policy Committee does not contend that ROTC instructors do present biased views in an attempt to put forth any particular ideological or policy view. Further, the military discipline to which the ROTC member must submit during his summer obligations and during his term-time marching and other training obligations does not extend to the classroom, and no uniforms are worn by ROTC members in classes. It is conceivable that in a ROTC course there would be the greatest freedom of expression and no attempt to propagandize any particular policy view. Each ROTC instructor must decide for himself how he views policy matters. But even if every ROTC instructor at Harvard were in fact to view his course setting as a completely academic one and to feel free to express all his views on policy matters, Harvard would still have no assurance that such a condition would be permanent.

The mere possibility that an instructor would be restricted in the freedom to express his views is a condition which the regular Harvard Faculty member would find intolerable. Further, Harvard seeks to protect its Faculty members when academic freedom is challenged. Such protection could never be afforded a ROTC instructor.

The HRPC does not challenge Harvard's right to invite a member of the Military Services to give a course on military or foreign policy. But in the case of the ROTC programs, Harvard is not inviting an individual whom it feels is an expert on military history and policy, but rather is inviting the Defense Department to establish Departments of Military Science, Naval Science and Aerospace Studies and to staff them with military personnel who are to serve a tour of duty for the express purpose of training future officers.

In the normal Harvard appointment procedure, a group of experts in the field (most of whom are not Harvard Faculty members) judge the qualifications of an individual after an Academic Department has recommended him for tenure. In the case of ROTC appointments, the instructor is recommended by the Defense Department, and Harvard may only approve or disapprove the selection.

It seems obvious that Harvard never meant to and never did establish the Departments of Military Science, Naval Science, and Aerospace Studies with the full privileges of Academic Departments. All candidates for the A.B. degree must complete at least 13 1/2 non-ROTC course, all Faculty appointments for ROTC personnel are non-tenured, and ROTC Departments may not recommend degrees. Further, it seems that the ROTC Units view themselves at ROTC Units,not as Harvard Departments. Harvard has never entrusted the ROTC Units with the full privileges of an Academic Department, nor should it. An externally controlled body which pursues military training goals within the credit structure of the liberal arts program is incompatible with the liberal arts spirit. Credit courses on military matters must be given within the regular structure of Harvard rather than within the military structure of the ROTC Units.

The ROTC Units clearly hold a special status within Harvard. The HRPC recommends that the ROTC status be modified by withdrawing academic credit for ROTC course offerings. This recommendation is not meant to challenge the existence of ROTC programs at Harvard. We do feel, however, that change in the present status is necessary if ROTC is to remain at Harvard and its existence not contradict the basic educational principles of the liberal arts institution.

Withdrawal of Credit

THE PUBLIC LAW requires only that 1) the senior officer of each ROTC Unit hold the rank of full Professor 2) that course offerings be included in Harvard's curriculum and 3) that Harvard and the ROTC Units meet all the stipulations of the contracts between Harvard and the Secretaries of the participating Military Services. The withdrawal of academic credit would not specifically challenge the law, but would challenge the stipulations of the contracts. At the joint consent of Harvard and the Military Services, the contracts could legally be modified.

In accordance with paragraph two of Section 2102, a separate contract is made between Harvard and the Secretary of each Military Service participating in the ROTC program. Among the conditions required by contract, but not specifically by law, are the following:

* Harvard is to establish each ROTC Unit as an academic and administrative Department.

* Harvard is to grant credit toward a degree for completion for ROTC courses.

* While the law requires that ROTC courses be include in the Harvard curriculum and be prescribed and conducted by the Secretaries of the Military Services, the Army contract alone specifies that the Military may prescribe and conduct their courses only with Faculty approval.

* Harvard has the right to approve or disapprove of the assignment of any ROTC instructor and to request the removal of any instructor for just cause.

* The Naval contract specifies that the NROTC Professor be given a place on Harvard's major administrative board and receive the same privileges as other Department heads. The Army contract requires that a member of the Department of Military Science be given a seat on any Faculty committee whose jurisdiction includes ROTC.

* Harvard should, in general, promote the programs' purposes, and aid the Units in meeting maintenance quotas, and to encourage students in the programs of complete those programs.

If credit for ROTC courses were withdrawn, what would become of ROTC at Harvard? There is no specific legal requirement that ROTC courses be granted academic credit towards the A.B. degree. Though the contracts specify that academic credit is to be granted, there is no legal reason why the contracts cannot be amended. It has in fact proved possible to amend the Army contract to waive, in a given year and with the permission of the Secretary of the Army, the requirement that 100 members be enrolled in the basic course whenever the basic course is given.

It is difficult to determine how the Military Services would respond to the withdrawal of credit. According to information presented by the Harvard Undergraduate Council in its fact sheet, Major Folk of Air Force ROTC "was of the opinion that a loss of academic credit would mean a loss of prestige and participation, and the eventual withdrawal of AFROTC."

IT IS DIFFICULT to determine what extent credit for ROTC courses is an inducement to take ROTC programs, although the inducement does seem less than has been claimed. ROTC programs should not be made appealing at the sacrifice of essential principles of the liberal arts institution, especially when the basis of their appeal is unclear in the first place. Colonel Pell is concerned about a potential "disservice to the maintenance of the national defense establishment, as now constituted." We contend that any aspect of the status of ROTC at Harvard which is a disservice to the principles of the liberal art institution cannot possibly be a true service to the national interest, for whose physical protection a national defense establishment exists. At present, the ROTC programs render a disservice to Harvard through the incompatibility of several aspects of their goals and structure with the liberal arts spirit and the principle of academic freedom.

Two resolutions to be presented at the Faculty meeting call for withdrawal of academic credit from ROTC:

SFAC

For the Student-Faculty Advisory Council Professor Albritton will move

Whereas, the ROTC program is externally controlled, i.e., taught by professors who do not hold regular appointments and do not enjoy academic freedom as it ordinarily understood, and

Whereas, The ROTC curriculum, taken as a whole does not, in its substance, deserve to be included in the course offering of Harvard College.

Resolved: That the Student-Faculty Advisory Council requests the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to: 1. Withhold academic credit from any courses offered by the three branches of ROTC at Harvard in the future.

2. Request the Harvard Corporation to terminate the Faculty appointments of the present instructors of these courses as soon as possible after the end of the current year and to make no further such appointments.

3. Request the Harvard Corporation to withdraw the description ROTC courses from the course catalogue and to cease the free allocation of space in University buildings to ROTC.

4. Provide scholarship funds where need is created by this Faculty action.

HUC

For the Harvard Undergraduate Council, Mr. Wilcox will move

1. That the Faculty of Art and Sciences withdraw credit from the courses offered by the three branches of ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) at Harvard.

2. That the description of ROTC courses be withdrawn from the Course Catalogue.

3. That this Faculty request that Corporation withdraw its appointments from instructors of these course.

4. That this Faculty request the Corporation to withdraw automatic allotment of space in Shannon Hall reserved for the ROTC courses.

5. That these changes be effected beginning with the Fall of 1969, affecting the four-year program and the Class of 1973, and the two-year program and the Class of 1971.

6. That any changes in the financial status of ROTC students as a result of this motion be should be given special consideration by the Committee on Admissions and Scholarships.