Stanford ROTC Coverage

7 February 1969 Stanford University ROTC Departments: A Report and Recommendations. Note: Recognizing the requirements of the ROTC Vitalization Act of 1964, the majority proposed off-campus military training that "would not and should not be denoted as "ROTC"" and "representatives of the armed forces at Stanford shall carry no academic rank". They said that under any closer relationship "ROTC would remain the corporate representation of the armed forces within the structure of the University staffed by professional military officers". The minority considered the majority recommendations to be "tantamount to abolition" of ROTC. The minority proposed retaining ROTC with the university senate appointing a Military Studies Committee to determine credit for ROTC courses and review appointments of ROTC faculty. "The [Military Studies] Programs shall include accredited courses offered by the Department of Military Studies, courses offered in other departments of the University, and any approved military science Undergraduate Specials." After considering a title of "Visiting Professor" for military faculty, the minority rejected that approach because military faculty stay longer than one year and have administrative responsibilities; instead they proposed retaining Professor appointments.
15 October 1971 Harvard Crimson article "ROTC May Return to Ivy Schools".
12 September 1973 Log on ROTC at Stanford 1968-1973. Note: After the 7 February 1969 report, the University Senate voted to phase out academic credit for ROTC courses, but after Stanford students voted in a referendum in support of such credit, the Senate voted on 22 January 1970 to "allow academic credit to be given on a course-for-course basis". A 16 April 1970 student referendum narrowly supported retaining ROTC on campus and overwhelmingly disapproved the granting of credit for ROTC courses. On 1 June 1970 the Advisory Committee on ROTC Affairs recommended phasing out ROTC by June 1972, and 3 days later the Senate endorsed the recommendation.
29 April 1989 Harvard Crimson article "Other Campuses". Note: A summary of the status of ROTC at several elite universities.
11 October 2001 Stanford Daily article "ROTC mobilizes, but not at Stanford"
28 November 2001 Stanford Daily article "The history of Stanford's ROTC opposition".
January/February 2002 Stanford Magazine "Corps Curriculum". Comment: This article illustrates how involving existing faculty members in teaching courses for ROTC credit could address the concerns of those who oppose ROTC course credit over issues of academic content.
May / June 2002 Stanford Magazine letter "ROTC: A Student's Rebuttal".
10 January 2003 Stanford Daily article "Republicans push for ROTC return".
17 January 2003 Stanford Daily editorial "ROTC does not live up to University’s standards". Comment: The editorial states incorrectly that the rules on gays in the military are "the military’s policy"; actually they are federal law, as documented on Stanford's "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue Web site.
14 April 2003 Stanford Daily article "ROTC readies military leaders".
22 April 2003 Stanford Daily column "Under Bush administration, ROTC is not admirable program" by John Martin. Comment: A Stanford alumnus argues that ROTC cadets should refuse to fight outside the USA, risking court martial and imprisonment.
24 April 2003 Stanford Daily column "Stanford needs ROTC to train leaders, teach discipline" by Jeffrey C. Needham.
10 August 2003 Washington Post Op-Ed "Repressing ROTC" by Christina Hoff Sommers.
13 May 2005 Stanford Review article "ROTC's Continued Exile Disgraceful".
13 May 2005 Stanford Review column "Students Deserve to Have ROTC Back on Campus" by Milton Solorzano.
1 June 2005 Stanford Daily article "Students question ROTC policy". Note: A sophomore an ex-Air Force ROTC member, describes how he had to drop out of ROTC because "the three trips a week to San Jose State did not fit into his schedule".
27 April 2007 Stanford Review column "Stanford’s Anti-ROTC Policy is Self-Contradictory" by Yishai Kabaker. Note: A gay man argues that it is unfair to restrict the rights of students to do ROTC because of the federal "don't ask, don't tell" law, and notes that "ROTC courses like “The Evolution of the United States Air and Space Power,” “Naval Ship Systems” and “Navigation and Naval Operations” are today deemed academically unfit for Stanford while “Chick Flicks and Breakup Songs” receives full credit without question."
17 May 2007 The Stanford Daily article "Cadet to White House: ROTC senior will meet president, take oath". Note: Stanford student Diana Clough ‘07 will take her oath, "the first time the president has conducted the swearing-in ceremony for ROTC cadets".
17 May 2007 Remarks by the President at Joint Reserve Officer Training Corps Commissioning Ceremony. (Video here) Note: President George W. Bush said "All of you have made many sacrifices to receive your commission. Yet some of you have had to endure even greater hardships -- because your universities do not allow ROTC on campus. For those of you in this position, this can require long commutes several times a week to another campus that does offer ROTC, so you can attend a military class, participate in a drill. Most of all, it means living a split existence -- where your life as a cadet or midshipmen is invisible to most of your fellow students. Every American citizen is entitled to his or her opinion about our military. But surely the concept of diversity is large enough to embrace one of the most diverse institutions in American life. It should not be hard for our great schools of learning to find room to honor the service of men and women who are standing up to defend the freedoms that make the work of our universities possible. To the cadets and midshipmen who are graduating from a college or university that believes ROTC is not worthy of a place on campus, here is my message: Your university may not honor your military service, but the United States of America does. And in this, the people's house, we will always make a place for those who wear the uniform of our country." Among the officers sworn in at the ceremony were Erik Sand of Harvard, Diana Clough of Stanford and Bret Woellner from Columbia.
17 May 2007 Associated Press article "Bush says ROTC has a place on campus". Note: "Three of the officers in the White House ceremony came from schools that don't allow ROTC on campus, including Harvard University, Stanford University and Columbia University. Bush saluted their extra sacrifice."
17 May 2007 United States American Forces Press Service article "Gates Commissions ROTC Cadets at White House". Note: "A change in the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act allows the president, vice president or secretary of defense to administer the oath of commission or enlistment".
17 May 2007 United States Department of Defense photos "White House Commissioning Ceremony". Note: One of the photos is of U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with graduating Harvard ROTC student Erik Sand and his mother. More photos here and here.
17 May 2007 Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog item "Bush Assails Colleges That Shun ROTC Units". Note: The Chronicle notes that in addition to colleges that ban ROTC there are colleges where there is no ROTC program because the Pentagon concluded that there were "poor prospects of finding good recruits".
18 May 2007 The Stanford Daily article "Bush condemns schools without ROTC programs". Note: Graduating ROTC student Diana Clough ‘07, who was commissioned at the White House, said that "the President’s speech writers met with her before yesterday’s White House ceremony in the East Room. “I felt like he was talking about me the entire time, which is really insane"". Jeff Wachtel, special assistant to Stanford President John Hennessy "said that Hennessy and Prof. William Perry, formerly a U.S. secretary of defense, held a lunch in the fall to honor ROTC students on campus." "Clough said that the University misses out on “a vital chance to influence the student leaders of tomorrow.” “Stanford is really into producing future leaders in every area, but they don’t include the military, which is interesting considering the times we’re in,” she said".
18 May 2007 The Stanford Daily article "Bush honors Stanford cadet at White House: Top ROTC scholar, markswoman becomes an Army Lt.". Note: "This year, about 4,000 graduating college seniors will commission into the Army. Clough’s decorated service record and strong performance in drills places her among the top 50 cadets in the country."
25 May 2007 The Stanford Daily editorial "Time to rethink ROTC". Note: Stanford's student newspaper calls for the university to "rethink its rationale for banning on-campus ROTC programs". One of the ideas raised is for ROTC to "have access to Stanford facilities in a manner akin to extra-curricular student groups", which does not meet the full requirements of the ROTC Vitalization Act of 1964.
29 May 2007 The Stanford Daily article "Azia used Stanford to get ROTC spot". Note: A woman masquerading as a Stanford student and squatting in a Stanford dorm forged a Stanford transcript and convinced the Army ROTC program at Santa Clara University to allow her to take ROTC classes. In the comments on this article "Hooah" notes "If the ROTC program was run on the Stanford campus, the ROTC Cadre would have easily identified Ms. Kim's fraud as they could check enrollment through the registrar -- something they cannot do as a third party without the student's permission, which is the case now."
15 January 2008 Federal News Service transcript "The Democratic Debate in Las Vegas". Note: Moderator Tim Russert asked "There's a federal statute on the books which says that, if a college or university does not provide space for military recruiters or provide a ROTC program for its students, it can lose its federal funding. Will you vigorously enforce that statute?" Senator Clinton said "Yes, I will... I think that everyone should make available an opportunity for a young man or woman to be in ROTC, to be able to join the military and I'm going to do everything I can to support the men and women in the military and their families." Russert followed-up by asking "Of the top 10 rated schools, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, they do not have ROTC programs on campus. Should they?" and Clinton responded "Well, there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation. But they should certainly not do anything that either undermines or disrespects the young men and women who wish to pursue a military career." To the same question about ROTC Senator Obama responded "Yes. One of the striking things, as you travel around the country, you go into rural communities and you see how disproportionally they are carrying the load in this war in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. And it is not fair. Now, the volunteer Army, I think, is a way for us to maintain excellence." Senator Edwards also responded affirmatively but switched immediately to discuss veterans' issue. None of the candidates mentioned the "Don't ask, don't tell" law cited by these universities in banning ROTC.
22 January 2008 Young America's Foundation ad "Bring ROTC back onto Stanford's campus!" in the Stanford Daily. Note: The quotes are from the Las Vegas Democratic presidential debate.
5 March 2008 Stanford Daily article "Candidates in favor of ROTC on campus". Note: In discussing the 15 January comments of presidential candidates about ROTC and the Solomon Amendment, Jeff Wachtel, senior assistant to Stanford President John Hennessy, stressed the difficulty of getting the Pentagon to agree to having ROTC at Stanford because of lack of strong support in the university community: "Any effort to convince the military to bring the program back to Stanford would first need to gain faculty support and then show enough student interest, he said."
2 October 2008 Harvard Crimson article "Alumni Org Calls For Return Of ROTC". Note: The American Council of Trustees and Alumni sent letters to the governing boards of Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Brown and Stanford calling on them to reconsider their bans on ROTC. "Paul E. Mawn ’63, the chairman of Advocates for Harvard ROTC and a retired Navy captain, said in an interview yesterday that ACTA “may not understand what the realistic target is” and that the goal should be official recognition" by the Harvard Corporation, "not the opening of a ROTC branch at Harvard. “The reality is that there are so few students at ROTC anyway, so tomorrow if Harvard begged and pleaded the Pentagon to bring it back on campus, they wouldn’t,” Mawn said. “What has evolved around the country is core sites like MIT that service several different schools. MIT has the critical mass and good facilities and classrooms for the courses and drilling and other activities. There is no critical mass at Harvard.”". Mawn called upon Harvard to pay the overhead fee for Harvard students taking ROTC courses at MIT, currently paid by the alumni-funded "Friends of Harvard ROTC Trust".
29 November 2008 Parade Magazine article "The Fight For ROTC". The article notes that "Although more than 600 colleges in the U.S. allow ROTC programs on campus, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Tufts, Stanford, and the University of Chicago have maintained the bans they began in protest of the Vietnam War... “The seven schools who exclude ROTC produce many of our leaders, yet their students have the least contact with the military,” says Sean Wilkes (Columbia University ‘06), chair of Advocates for Columbia ROTC. "
23 October 2009 Stanford Review article "Students Find Time for ROTC". Note: "Regarding the reinstatement of ROTC curriculum at Stanford, [Katie] McCaffree ['12] made the point that more Stanford students would likely give the program more thought if it was more convenient. In response to inquiries as to why Stanford has not reinstated its ROTC program, Vice Provost for Student Affairs(VPSA) Greg Boardman merely stated, “The decision regarding ROTC took place 40 years ago.” "
22 January 2010 Stanford Review article "Initiative to Increase Understanding of U.S. Military". Note: The Truman Service Initiative aims to educate college students who are likely to become leaders about the nation’s armed forces. The initiative has programs at Stanford, Columbia, Harvard, the University of Chicago, and Yale. One subject that came up during a "Military 101" lecture at Stanford was making it easier for students to do ROTC. "Stanford’s Haas Center for Public Service currently offers monetary support for car rentals to ROTC members, who need to drive to neighboring educational institutions to undergo training".
3 March 2009 Stanford University News article "Faculty Senate to meet on Thursday: The senate will hear reports on ROTC at Stanford...". Note: The Stanford news office provides some historical background to ROTC at Stanford.
4 March 2010 Stanford Review blog item "Preview: Faculty Senate takes on ROTC". Note: In advance of a faculty senate meeting discussing ROTC, economics professor John Taylor describes why closer relations between Stanford and the military would be good for both.
4 March 2010 Stanford University ROTC Excerpt from Faculty Senate Minutes. Note: Professor David Kennedy referred to a 1969 proposal by the military for academic credit on a course-by-course basis, and said "The Faculty Senate accepted that proposal in January of 1970, and then reversed itself, May 7th, 1970, the week of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia. [Finally] it reversed its vote entirely and stated, 'We want ROTC off the campus by the end of the next academic year'". Prof. Kennedy and former Secretary of Defense Prof. William Perry argued for a return of ROTC as a way of narrowing the civil-military divide. Also "Professor Admati, noted, "I come from a country, Israel, where the Army is the people's Army, and everybody [has been in the service]. That does make it special. I do feel that it's separate here, because I know nobody who serves, really."
4 March 2010 Stanford Review blog item "Faculty Senate Launches ROTC Exploration". Note: The faculty senate voted overwhelmingly to form an ad-hoc committee to "investigate Stanford’s role in preparing students for leadership in the military including potential relations with ROTC". Proponents argued that the issues of the 1960s were solvable, and reform of "Don't ask, don't tell" would remove the last major stumbling block to closer relations between Stanfard and the military.
5 March 2010 Stanford Daily article "Faculty Senate talks ROTC". Note: Professor William Perry ‘49 M.S. ‘50, the former U.S. Secretary of Defense, and historian David Kennedy ‘63 argued for restoring ROTC. "When Perry was discussing the issue with President Hennessy last decade, the controversial policy came up as a roadblock.“We both decided that with ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ it was inappropriate to re-raise the question,” Perry said. But yesterday, Kennedy and Perry expressed confidence in President Obama’s ability to end the policy."
5 March 2010 New York Times Bay Area blog item "Stanford Considers Bringing R.O.T.C. Back". Note: The history of ROTC leaving Stanford is discussed, complete with a picture of the Navy ROTC building in flames.
9 March 2010 San Francisco Chronicle article "Stanford considers bringing ROTC back". Note: Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Kennedy, in presenting to the Faculty Senate, warned that by banning ROTC at elite colleges "we are in danger of seriously compromising a 200-year-old tradition in this society of the citizen soldier ... In 2008, the 307 general officers in the United States Army ... had 180 of their children in the service" but by contrast, the 535 members of Congress had only 10 children serving in the military.
10 March 2010 Stanford Daily article "ROTC Revisited". Note: The article recounts the history of ROTC leaving Stanford in the early 1970s, including the arson that burned the ROTC building to the ground in 1968. David Harris ’67, one of the leaders of the anti-ROTC movement, summed up his position as “If you believe in the life of the mind, you don’t drop napalm on villages”.
8 April 2010 San Jose Mercury News Op-ed "With ROTC, Stanford could help shape our military debate" by Ben Renda. Note: "As a Truman National Security Project fellow, I have twice visited Stanford to teach a "Military 101" course to undergraduates. What I have taken away from these is a strong appreciation for the students' raw intellect but an equally powerful concern for their unfamiliarity with our military and the circumstances surrounding two current military conflicts that have claimed 5,391 American lives... Stanford has the opportunity to set the example for other institutions of higher learning across America by allowing ROTC to return."
5 May 2010 Stanford Daily article "For Stanford ROTC students, early commutes — and perspective". Note: In a panel discussion on whether Stanford should allow ROTC on campus, Kassandra Mangosing ’10 described how she needs to wake up at 3:15 AM to get to ROTC at San Jose State University.
9 May 2010 Second Line of Defense article "Close the Open Wound on Vets: End the Ban on ROTC at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia Effective Memorial Day 2010" by John Wheeler. Note: Discussing discrimination against gays in the military and ROTC in universities, Wheeler notes "There is no systematic evidence that the majority of gays in the military and gay vets want fellow military personnel in ROTC stigmatized to end the stigma on gays. Stigmatizing one group of youngsters in order to de-stigmatize another group is self-defeating and a policy oxymoron."
25 May 2010 The Atlantic column "DADT and Ivy League ROTC" by James Fallows. Note: Fallows argues that the "separation between an important military intake system and some of the most elite universities" is "bad for the military, bad for the universities, and bad for the country. Almost no one urging the anti-ROTC change of those days would have argued or imagined that 35 years after U.S. troops left Vietnam the ban should still be in place." See responses, but note that the claim that Stanford currently has Army ROTC is not true.
26 Augst 2010 Time Magazine article "Is ROTC Poised for a Comeback at Elite Colleges?" Note: "Michael Segal, a Harvard graduate and member of the coalition group Advocates for ROTC, argues that for schools like Stanford and Columbia, which have strong engineering programs, the benefits of bringing ROTC to these campuses could outweigh the costs of maintaining what will likely be smaller units there. "It may look on paper that these schools get half as much value as ROTC does at other programs, but we need some of these people," he says. "We need very thoughtful people in the military."" In addition to the Ivy-based units mentioned in the article, Penn also has on campus Naval ROTC.
12 September 2010 Stanford Review article "Future of ROTC Hangs in Leeway". Note: "President Hennessy weighed in, “Our faculty is responsible for course content and would need to review and approve the necessary curriculum changes.” Hennessy, when asked how ROTC can make Stanford a better university responded, “I think that the more significant question for the faculty is whether Stanford can make an important contribution to the country and national defense by having Stanford students prepare for leadership positions in the armed forces.”"
26 September 2010 Stanford Review editorial "Why Is ROTC Different?". Note: Stanford's conservative magazine writes "If the University denied any other group of students academic credit, support, and even acknowledgement, student voices would already have risen with cries of intolerance. If the University punished any other group of students based on the existence of a Congressionally-mandated law, then we would hear those same cries of intolerance."
29 September 2010 Stanford Daily editorial "Bring ROTC back to campus". Note: Referring to the "Don't ask, don't tell" law, the editorial observes that "holding ROTC hostage to the potential repeal of the policy, which has floundered in Congress despite widespread support from political and military leadership, only empowers a political failure to cause two detrimental outcomes instead of one... Stanford owes these students–as well as those who might have chosen to serve had the opportunities been more available–its fullest support. It is not just those students who suffer from the exclusion of ROTC. All Stanford students do. If diversity is part of the University’s mission, exposure to the military ought to be a valued element." See letter on 4 October.
30 September 2010 Stanford Daily "Letter from the editor: covering ROTC". Note: Elizabeth Titus takes issue with the contention by the Stanford Review's blog that "For a long time, The Stanford Review was the only campus publication and one of the few student-driven voices reporting on ROTC at Stanford and calling for its return" by listing its coverge of the issue, including a 2007 editorial "Time to rethink ROTC".
2 October 2010 American Council of Trustees and Alumni Speech by Anne Neal at Columbia Service & Society Conference. Note: ACTA president Anne Neal said "Each campus will need to ask itself tough questions. For example: What kind of presence do we want ROTC to have—an office, a building, a website? ... Are there ways that Columbia and other institutions might develop rigorous offerings in such fields as military history, anthropology, and game theory ...that would create ROTC programs commensurate with the outstanding academic programs of our greatest universities? ... there is a documented and disturbing dearth of courses on military and diplomatic history in elite and major universities. At Harvard today there is not one explicitly military history course offered this year or planned in the near future in the history department. There is only one course dedicated explicitly to US foreign relations. Out of 48 history faculty members, including visiting faculty, none are explicitly focused on foreign policy, diplomatic history or military history. Of Stanford’s full time history faculty, zero are focused on diplomatic or military history. At Brown, there are no courses focused on military history, and no faculty focused on diplomatic or military history, although there is one faculty member who is “probing the politics of knowing about and interacting with birds.”
4 October 2010 Stanford Daily op-ed "Our School, Not Your Army Base" by Danny Colligan M.S. ‘11. Note: Colligan takes an anti-military approach to the ROTC issue and writes "there are plenty of reasons to exclude ROTC. First, I’m not aware of any other organization that blackmails its members with financial penalties if they discover years down the road that the group isn’t for them. Second, I also haven’t heard of any student group that forces its members to pledge several years of their lives to the organization after graduation. These requirements make Stanford less of an institution to nurture intellectual interests and more of an assembly line for the Army." In fact, service or payback provisions have been conditions for certain NIH-supported training programs.
7 November 2010 Stanford Review op-ed "ROTC Debate About More Than DADT" by Kyle O'Malley and Evan Storms. Note: "Stanford has an obligation to let students participate in a program that can offer students the opportunity to become bothscholars and soldiers. Stanford should allow ROTC to have a presence on this campus to ensure that those who do choose to serve in the military are equipped to deal intellectually and comprehensively with the issues that they will face."
11 November 2010 Stanford Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC letter "Your thoughts on possible relations between Stanford University and ROTC". Note: The letter summarizes the history of ROTC at Stanford, including a 1970 "proposal from the Army that academic credit be given on a course-by-course basis under the aegis of the Committee on Undergraduate Studies" and asks for input on the ROTC issue at Stanford.
11 November 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "The Senate Wants You! (To Comment on ROTC’s Existence)" by Otis Reid. Note: "In February 1969, the Faculty Senate voted 75% to 25% to phase out academic credit for ROTC programs. What did students think of this? Aren’t they the radicals that pushed against the army? I guess not: later that month, students voted by a 60% to 40% margin that “ROTC has a legitimate place on the campus and deserves the support and credit from the University for all those parts of the program that are of genuine academic interest.” In early 1970, the Faculty Senate agreed to offer academic credit on a course-by-course basis to ROTC courses, but reversed course after the war escalated with the U.S. invasion of Cambodia, ultimately resulting in the decision to phase out academic credit by 1973. The [Associated Students of Stanford University] Senate (then a larger, combined entity) agreed and passed a resolution against allowing any group designed for military training to be designated a [Voluntary Student Organization]".
14 November 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "ROTC ban survives despite Solomon Amendment" by Kyle Huwa. Note: "With its track record over the past 50 years, it seems unlikely that the Pentagon will take any steps to cut federal funding to schools that forbid ROTC. Thus, the decision of whether or not Stanford students have the right to participate in ROTC on their federally funded campus lies completely in the hands of the faculty senate."
15 November 2010 Stanford Daily op-ed "Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Does Not End Military Discrimination" by Charles Ledbetter and Janani Balasubramanian. Note: Two students writing "on behalf of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation" state "as an organization that supports a radical queer political framework, we oppose ROTC as a representation of militarism ... we do not feel it in our interests to support the ROTC program even after the repeal of DADT".
16 November 2010 Stanford Daily op-ed "ROTC is our choice. Let’s make the right one" by Sam Windley LL.M. ’11. Note: The author argues that there is little value to having an ROTC program at Stanford, but as discussed in the comments, does not focus on the value of interactions between the military and the university, the influx of scholarship funds, or the importance to the country of having Stanford graduates in the officer community.
16 November 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "The ROTC Debate Heats Up" by Alex Katz. Note: "At the end of the day, this debate is about whether we should facilitate opportunities for Stanford students. I think we should."
19 November 2010 Stanford Daily article "ROTC committee awaits community responses". Note: The Stanford ad hoc committee on ROTC sent an open letter to the Stanford community asking for feedback on the potential return of ROTC to campus.
21 November 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "The Culture Gap is Real: Not much attention paid to ROTC debate" by Danny Crichton. Note: "Bringing ROTC back to campus is unlikely to dramatically increase the number of Stanford students becoming military cadets, but it may bring Stanford’s culture into the military. Given the massive changes that warfare has experienced (such as the rise of unmanned aerial vehicles or highly-networked soldiers), maybe that young innovation is precisely the change needed to help America in future conflicts."
22 November 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Talking ROTC w/ “Cam and Company”" by Alex Katz. Note: Katz says that the increase in student veterans at Stanford is changing the climate on campus to be more friendly to ROTC. There are 21 veterans as undergraduates.
30 November 2010 Stanford Review article "ROTC’s Fate Rests with Many". Note: "Stanford Army cadet Ann Thompson ’11 ... stated, “I know that many Stanford students are interested not only in bringing ROTC back to campus, but also in participating in the program.” She continued, “I have spoken to many Stanford students over the past four years who were genuinely interested in joining ROTC.” ... Thompson realizes that a full program won’t move back onto campus overnight. She believes though that it could someday become a reality. “If ROTC were to return to Stanford, it would probably happen incrementally,” Thompson stated.... But Thompson also points out the most important factor in the debate: “Both Stanford and the [Department of Defense] must first be on board.” She stated, “Over time, though, I believe Stanford will be able to support battalions and a detachment of its own…the payoff will be enormous.”"
30 November 2010 Stanford Review article "Letters to the Faculty Senate ROTC Committee". Note: Among the letters is one by Grant Everett Starrett ‘09, who writes "There is a tradition in the United Kingdom that the partisan critics of the government be referred to as “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.” Stanford has demonstrated disloyal opposition in its decision to stubbornly protest policies determined by political masters of the US military."
30 November 2010 Stanford Review article "President’s Office Supports ROTC". Note: Through its Military Service as Public Service initiative, Stanford funds Zipcar transportation for all ROTC students to cross-town programs. The initiative also funds activities such as celebrating military service, identifying student liaisons, inviting guest speakers, and organizing community-building events.
30 November 2010 Stanford Review letter "Military Experience, Post-Stanford" by Roger Josselyn, MBA ’49. Note: "Any future war will be won or lost because of the quality of our military leadership - not just because of the caliber of our forces... So guys and dolls, if you think the ROTC on campus is some despicable anti-social activity, you, as I did, are likely missing the point, namely that your personal short-sightedness could, sooner rather than later, cause the demise of your taken-for-granted America."
2 December 2010 Stanford Ethics and War Series event videos "Who Should Fight? The Ethics of the Draft".
3 December 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Are you too smart for the draft?" by Nadiv Rahman. Note: Rahman describes the “Ethics of the Draft” panel discussion sponsored by the Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation. "All three speakers focused on a broad variety of topics pertaining to military participation and the role of the citizen-soldier. They also drew attention to the fact that the rejection of ROTC by institutions such as Stanford helps to further the distance between the civic society and the military."
9 December 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Is ROTC’s return being decided right now in Washington?". Note: The ROTC issue depends on the "Don't ask, don't tell" issue, which depends on the tax bill.
14 December 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Thoughts on ROTC, Stanford, and the “Two Cultures”" by Danny Crichton. Note: "It is my fundamental thesis that the military’s culture today is largely independent of the culture that exists at places like Stanford, a disconnect that did not exist until the last few decades."
18 December 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "DADT Overturn Paves the Way for ROTC’s Return" by Alex Katz. Note: "So what now for Stanford? The Faculty Senate’s ROTC committee, unlike officials at many peer institutions, declined to comment. The committee still has a number of months left to complete its research before presenting conclusions to the Faculty Senate. And until that time, I suspect that we’ll hear little out of the committee."
19 December 2010 Stanford Daily article "‘Don’t ask’ repeal could ‘lighten task’ for Stanford’s ROTC committee". Note: Psychology professor Ewart Thomas, the chair of the Faculty Senate’s ad hoc committee on ROTC, wrote “I’m delighted by the repeal by Congress of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell ....I have a feeling that this repeal will lighten the task of the Faculty Senate’s ROTC committee as we discuss whether, and in what form, Stanford University should expand its relations with the Reserve Officer Training Corps programs within the U.S. military.” He also noted that not all opposition to ROTC is rooted in the federal policy, and that concerns about continued discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military after the repeal could still exist.
22 December 2010 New York Times article "Elite Colleges Rethink Ties to R.O.T.C. After ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal". Note: The number of students at elite colleges doing ROTC at other colleges is: Harvard 19, Columbia 6, Yale 4, Brown 1, and Stanford 15. Harvard is the only one to have cross-town Army, Navy and Air Force opportunities nearby.
22 December 2010 ABC News article "Repeal of Gay Ban Opens Door to ROTC Return at Top Schools". Note: "Allowing ROTC to operate on-campus would also facilitate integration the nation's top students into military leadership roles and potentially broaden connections between military decision-makers and other high-profile alumni from the elite schools, advocates say. "The alternative is a civil-military divide, and you get situations like people who've trained in Ivy League institutions or places like Stanford who are represented in leadership of the country but who don't have friends in the military, or they don't know enough about the military to manage it properly, or just have discussions about military-related issues," said Michael Segal, founder and director of Advocates for ROTC, an umbrella group promoting the return of the military program to top colleges and universities.... Eric Chen, a recent Columbia graduate and Army veteran, said the military and universities need to understand the mutual benefits of bringing ROTC back to all schools in the Ivy League. "In an increasingly complex global security environment, America needs military leaders able to adapt on a full spectrum, which means officers who are creative critical thinkers and lifelong learners with the best possible academic foundation," he said. "Columbia already hosts innovative cross-cutting programs that rely upon the special reach and multi-dimensional resources of a global flagship university in a world city."" The article notes that "skeptics have questioned whether there would be enough student interest to merit the time and resources of bringing ROTC back. Chen said the military and university administrators need to give students a chance. "You first have to plant the seed in order to grow the tree," he said. "Building the cadet population at Columbia first requires ROTC on campus. Then, as Columbia ROTC is nurtured into a fully integrated member of the university, the cadet population will grow over time.""
~ Late December 2010 Stanford Students for Queer Liberation "Open letter to the Stanford Administration regarding the consideration of transgender students in the debate over ROTC". Note: "In the debate over ROTC, both sides seem to have forgotten about transgender students, who will still face explicitly discriminatory policies in ROTC and the military in general. Transgender status or a Gender Identity Disorder (GID) diagnosis alone can disqualify a student for open military service. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not allow transgender individuals to serve openly (yes, even with the DADT repeal in place). Various military bureaucratic entities include DD-215 forms in the military, the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service do not contain provisions to alter gender (from male to female or vice versa). Furthermore, numerous Veteran's Affairs medical services including prostate exams, pap smears, and mammograms are routinely denied to transgender veterans... Our own non-discrimination clause states, “Stanford University admits qualified students of any race, color, national or ethnic origin, sex, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity to all the rights, privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to students at the University.”" Similar language is in Harvard and Columbia nondiscrimination statements. Stanford Students for Queer Liberation endorses the website of "Stanford Says No to War".
5 January 2011 Stanford Daily article "‘Don’t ask’ repeal jumpstarts ROTC debate". Note: Some in the "left-leaning community" at Stanford favor welcoming ROTC now that DADT is repealed, but others "are concerned that transgender people are still excluded from service according the Uniform Code of Military Justice". See letter on 6 January.
6 January 2011 Stanford Daily letter "With DADT gone, plenty of objections to ROTC remain" by Danny Colligan. Note: The President emeritus of "Stanford Says No to War" quotes a 1969 document to demonstrate that opposition to ROTC at that time was not based on the 1993 "Don't ask, don't tell" law. He lists academic freedom, transgender rights and anti-military reasons for opposing ROTC at Stanford.
9 January 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Objecting to ROTC on anti-discrimination grounds". The item discusses the anti-ROTC site set up by a student group at rotc.stanford.edu, and notes their opposition to ROTC because of discrimination against transgender people. After positing that some level of discrimination will likely be present in the military (though not using a compelling example such as medical disabilities), it asks whether the anti-ROTC group is "absolutely opposed to ROTC" or sees "some acceptable level of military discrimination where it would be a net benefit for Stanford to have ROTC?" (The rotc.stanford.edu subdomain was revoked on 11 January.)
12 January 2011 Stanford Daily article "Students discuss discrimination, military-civilian divide at ROTC town hall". Note: Alok Vaid-Menon ‘13, president of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation argued that ROTC on campus would still violate Stanford’s nondiscrimination policy by prohibiting transgender students from participating. Sam Windley, a law student and president of Stanford Says No to War, said that ROTC defies the right to free academic exploration.
12 January 2011 Bay Citizen article "Stanford Debates Return of ROTC". Note: The Stanford University Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC held its first public meeting. Opponents of allowing on-campus ROTC courses "included graduate student Sam Windley, who argued that ROTC’s ability to restrict its members to certain majors contradicted Stanford’s liberal educational approach. “If they want to come to Stanford, then Stanford should offer them the Stanford experience,” Windley said. “And the Stanford experience, as the undergraduate program is designed, is to expose students to all the possibilities that they want to pursue academically.”" Except, in his view, ROTC. "Jim Wilson, a student at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and an Army ROTC instructor, noted that in many ways, ROTC was already at Stanford because military programs use rooms at the University to teach some first- and second-year educational components of ROTC to its members... “At the end of the day, I felt that most of the arguments that were presented against bringing back ROTC to Stanford were legitimate reasons for an individual not to choose ROTC," he said, "but not compelling enough to not allow the program on the campus.”"
12 January 2011 Stanford University News article "Committee 'schooled' on ROTC, seeking more input from faculty and staff ". Note: "Stanford began hosting classes by Santa Clara University's Army ROTC program in 1997. Currently, six Army ROTC classes for freshmen and sophomores are held on the Stanford campus. The classes focus on leadership, including "Leadership and Personal Development" and "Leadership in Changing Environments.""
14 January 2011 Stanford Daily article "Faculty discuss academic merit of ROTC classes". Note: The Stanford University Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC met with faculty, and reported that it had studied MIT's ROTC arrangements in detail as a model for what may work at Stanford.
14 January 2011 Stanford Daily letter "ROTC lends the military a critical mix" by Dean Holman. Note: A Stanford ROTC alumnus writes that the absence of ROTC "would tend to change the character of the officer corps from reflecting the input of the citizen-solder to a solely professional officer corps" and that former Stanford president Kenneth Pitzer had agreed with this concern.
14 January 2011 Stanford University News article "Community forum raises new issues for Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC to contemplate". Note: Todd Davies, an academic research and program officer in the Symbolic Systems Program opposed ROTC since "ROTC students were required to make decisions about their future – that they would join the military as soon as they graduated from college – before they were mature enough to understand the array of choices available to them."
18 January 2011 Stanford Daily article "Stanford Says No to War loses ROTC subdomain". Note: Stanford inadvertently allowed an antiwar group to use the subdomain http://rotc.stanford.edu, but revoked the assignment because it was misleading.
18 January 2011 Stanford Daily letter "ROTC as a civil rights issue" by Sam Windley LL.M. ‘11. Note: The president of "Stanford Says No to War" writes to say that it was "disgusting" for ROTC supporters to argue that allowing ROTC is a civil rights issue and use terms such as “separate but equal”, “busing”, “minority” and “safe space on campus”. He argues that “Military-connectedness” should not be covered by the university's antidiscrimination policy.
18 January 2010 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Domain Names and War Games (or at Least Talk About ROTC)". Note: In the comments, one poster quotes from Stanford's nondiscrimination policy, which refers to "its obligations under the law" and "protected by applicable law" to argue that Stanford's policy should not be seen as being in disagreement with relevant laws since it draws its authority from those laws.
19 January 2011 Silicon Valley Mercury News article "Stanford ponders the return of ROTC after nearly four decades". Note: History professor Bart Bernstein said "Students in ROTC courses are not as intellectually free as they are in Stanford courses -- for instance, they are not allowed to criticize the president of the U.S., foreign policy and military action." However, ROTC graduate Sean Wilkes points out that Bernstein is wrong: ROTC students and students at service academies are not supposed to criticize the political or military leadership in public in uniform, but they may do so when out of uniform or in an academic setting such as a class.
20 January 2011 PolicyMic blog item "ROTC, DADT, and Continued Discrimination Against Transgender Individuals" by Alok Vaid-Menon. Note: The president of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation notes that "Various military bureaucratic processes including DD-215 forms in the military, the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service do not contain provisions to specify changes in gender identity (from male to female or vice versa). Furthermore, numerous Veteran's Affairs medical services including prostate exams, pap smears, and mammograms are routinely denied to transgender veterans". He notes that "A re-introduction of ROTC, therefore, still constitutes a violation of non-discrimination clauses that protect against discrimination on the basis of gender identity" and reports that "Stanford Students for Queer Liberation and Harvard Transgender Task Force have begun to work on this campaign on our respective campuses." He writes "I recognize that this is not an easy decision to make, but we feel working against such open injustices is essential to upholding our mutual investment in equal opportunity". He doesn't address the issue of whether other violations of university nondiscrimination clauses are acceptable, such as those protecting people with physical disabilities.
25 January 2011 Stanford Daily letter "ROTC: Lift the ban, but don’t hold your breath" by Tristan Abbey ‘08. Note: The writer expresses concern that Stanford will students interested in military service to wait until after graduation and enroll in Officer Candidate School.
26 January 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Obama Champions ROTC Return". Note: "His voice will likely bring with it the support of many more Democrats, if they weren’t already in support of ROTC."
26 January 2011 Stanford Daily article "ROTC debate comes to Undergraduate Senate". Note: Both Profs. Ewart Thomas, chairman of the ad hoc committee on ROTC and Hester Gelber, a member of the committee raised the question of students planning to work in the military or the State Department being discouraged from accessing classified documents on the WikiLeaks site.
26 January 2011 Bay citizen article "Revelation of ROTC Classes on Stanford Campus Casts Debate in New Light". Note: "According to a university press release published this month ... administrators have allowed informal ROTC classes to take place in Stanford facilities since 1997. Stanford’s registrar didn’t begin explicitly listing the classes as on-campus activities in the official university class catalog until the 2002-2003 academic year."
27 January 2011 New York Times article "Despite Obama’s Call, No Rush in R.O.T.C.’s Return to Campus". Note: The day after President Obama's State of the Union comments about ROTC, Cynthia Smith, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, said “New schools or universities interested in R.O.T.C. programs will each be evaluated” with an eye toward “the most efficient use of these resources”. Also, "As the universities now move toward recognizing R.O.T.C. programs, they still may hit a snag. Some students are arguing that even with the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the military still does not meet the antidiscrimination requirements of the universities because it bars people who are transgender. At Stanford, Alok Vaid-Menon, a sophomore and president of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation, said his group wanted to keep R.O.T.C. off the campus, though still allow students to participate in programs at nearby campuses, until the military accepted transgender students. He said that he had tried to raise support for this view from students at other universities but that the response so far had been “bleak.”"
27 January 2011 Extra Credit blog item "ROTC's Response to WikiLeaks Puts Academic Freedom at Risk" by Kevin Gosztola. Note: The "concerned" reaction of the head of the Stanford Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC to an op-ed about WikiLeaks was after the head of an anti-war group had just showed him the article.
31 January 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Operationalizing ROTC’s Return" by Otis Reid. Note: Reid considers how ROTC might return to campus if it were allowed to return.
31 January 2011 Stanford Review editorial "No Excuses Left for ROTC’s Ban". Note: "If they really wanted to free transgender individuals from military discrimination, they’d want as many Stanford student leaders in the military as possible."
31 January 2011 Stanford Review article "The Left Divided on ROTC". Note: Stanford Democrats has remained neutral on return of ROTC to Stanford, and some who remain opposed to ROTC after DADT repeal said they don't see Stanford Democrats as "a party of the Left".
1 February 2011 Stanford Daily article "NMB petitions potential ROTC return". Note: A LGBT group is opposing ROTC as long as transgender people can't serve openly in the military. One of its leaders said “If Harvard, Columbia, Stanford were to make a decision not to return ROTC to campus on the basis of transgender exclusion, the sheer cultural capital of that would help effectively prove to the military that it needs to change”.
2 February 2011 Stanford Daily article "Rice announces support for ROTC". Note: Professor Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of State and Hoover fellow George Shultz wrote “We can think of no better way to prepare future servicemen and women—many of whom will become national leaders—than by enriching them with a Stanford education.”
8 February 2010 Stanford Daily article "Cardona authors advisory bill on ROTC". Note: The measure would add a question about ROTC to the Spring 2011 student election ballot; "when the decision was made to remove ROTC from campus, there was a campus wide student vote".
8 February 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Cardona Submits Bill to Include ROTC Return on Ballot" by Otis Reid. Note: Reid argues that the anti-ROTC side hasn't "gained traction with most Stanford students" and that the pro-ROTC side will win as long as most students don't ignore the advisory ballot question.
8 February 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Stanford’s ROTC Committee is Sleeping on the Job" by Autumn Carter. Note: Assessing Stanford's Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC, Carter writes "The committee has utterly failed to drive this debate. Rather, The Stanford Review, this blog, and an increasing number of student voices are driving this more open debate... The committee is reading letters submitted to it by members of the Stanford community, but how many people knew that, and aren’t the people who write letters likely to be those who feel the strongest on either side of the debate? What of the vast majority of campus that has not fully tuned into the debate but may be seeking to actually explore the issue? The committee is doing a terrible job when it comes to actually getting a feel for this campus because it is only checking the vitals of those at the debate’s poles. Stanford’s ad hoc committee could take a real lesson from Columbia’s ROTC task force. While Columbia’s task force only began considering the issue in December, it has since illustrated that it is taking the exploration process seriously. Yesterday, the committee hosted the first of three all-campus forums, and all three forums will be held within the next two and a half weeks." However, as reported in the Columbia Spectator, the Town Hall format used at Columbia was not very illuminating, and for Columbia too, a lot of the most interesting discussion has been online.
9 February 2011 Stanford Daily article "The Gang of 14". Note: Interviewing some of the 14 students at Stanford doing ROTC at other colleges, the Daily learns that "The commutes to these schools, which range from half an hour to an hour on a good day, impact the course selection and extracurricular activities of the cadets.“The commute is part of the time commitment,” said [Air Force ROTC cadet Kirk] Morrow. “There’s definitely been a few times where there’s been a class that I wanted to take but I couldn’t because I would need to be leaving to go to ROTC at the tail end…It was more of the commute that kept me from taking a class than it was ROTC events.”“The fact that it’s not on campus has inhibited my ability to have academic freedom in terms of choosing classes,” added Jimmy Ruck ’11."
11 February 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "Supporting ROTC Supports Queer Rights" by Warner Sallman ’11 and Marloes Sijstermans ‘11. Note: "As queer students and supporters of greater transgender rights, we applaud SSQL’s efforts to draw attention to these issues. That being said, we are concerned that the antagonistic approach taken by SSQL is not representative of the larger queer community and may halt further progress for queer rights in the military... For the first time in the history of this country, representatives are taking queer voices seriously. Their consideration will do much to further social justice, but it merits a response of gratitude and reciprocal action from the queer and allied constituents. By continuing to antagonize the military, SSQL sends the message that no serious concessions will ever satisfy the community. This kind of approach undermines organizational credibility for future advocacy work. Negotiation requires compromise from both sides, and SSQL refuses to acknowledge that reality. In doing so, they obstruct further progress at the Congressional level."
14 February 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "No Free Lunch: A Motion to Express Support for a Non-Binding Referendum" by Dave Grundfest and Zack Hoberg. Note: The authors ask whether the ROTC issue should be seen as a rights issue, "whether this kind of issue should ever be subject to public opinion" in which a majority suppresses the right of some to choose ROTC.
22 February 2011 Stanford Daily column "An Argument Against ROTC’s Return, from an Actual Transgender Person’s Perspective" by Cristopher Bautista. Note: Bautista writes "I refuse to be told to sit quietly and let people who do not know me tell me what I should and should not do. I reserve the right to speak my opinion as a human being. Only I know what is truly good for me, and only transgender people know what is good for themselves. Thus, I say NO to the return of ROTC to Stanford."
3 March 2011 Stanford Daily article "Case brought against ASSU ROTC advisory bill". Note: Alok Vaid-Menon ’13, president of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation is trying to block a referendum on ROTC, saying it is like “putting civil rights on the ballot box” over the transgender issue. He said "The University is very firm in its non-discrimination policy, which includes gender identity. It seems generally silly to have a question that violates this University policy."
4 March 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Harvard Announces Return of ROTC". Note: Alok Vaid-Menon, president of Stanford Students for Queer Liberation, wrote of Harvard President Drew Faust (who is female) "Harvard was never transparent about the procedure they were adopting for this question. Last time they had a vote by the faculty. This time it seems like the President made a decision himself. This is a violation of student rights and faculty rights and is in direct violation of Harvard’s non-discrimination clause." However, as pointed out in the comments, Harvard's policy refers to discrimination "unrelated to course requirements", and since eligibility for military commissioning is a pre-requisite for certain ROTC courses Harvard is not violating its policy.
4 March 2011 Contentions (Commentary) blog item "ROTC Returns to Harvard but Remains AWOL from Some Ivy League Campuses" by Max Boot. Note: "Now it is high time for other elite institutions that have been dragging their feet — that means you, Columbia; you too, Stanford — to invite ROTC back on campus. And it is equally important for the armed forces to accept the invitation."
9 March 2011 Christian Science Monitor op-ed "With DADT out of the way, Harvard and military make a great couple" by Dan Caldwell. Note: A professor of political science at Pepperdine University and former Naval officer outlines 8 reasons why ROTC should return to elite university campuses. One is "I found that officers educated at universities such as Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford often had markedly different attitudes than their peers from the military academies or state universities with large ROTC programs. I believe that the presence of such officers in the military is highly desirable; they are representative of an important segment of American society that is currently under-represented in the military. They are more likely to question unreasonable or illegal orders or policies than those educated in a more militarily, hierarchically oriented environment." Another is "I served on a university committee at Stanford University that negotiated with the Department of Defense (DOD) concerning academic credit for ROTC courses. In these negotiations, the Department of Defense indicated its willingness to grant ROTC credit for courses taught by Stanford professors. For example, a course on war and conflict taught by the respected Professor Peter Paret, a translator of Clausewitz’s “On War,” would have been granted credit for the required ROTC course on military history. If DOD were now willing to accept such courses, the objection to having non-Stanford professors teaching courses for academic credit would be lessened."
9 March 2011 Stanford Daily article "Hennessy, Lythcott-Haims respond to advising concerns, ROTC at joint legislative meeting". Note: "ROTC’s potential return made an appearance in discourse several times over the meeting. Janani Balasubramanian ‘12 asked Hennessy to discuss how the administration was considering the military’s exclusion of transgender individuals in the ROTC discussion. Hennessy responded that the question was a complex one. He said in both potential outcomes, “some group of students will not be able to participate in a program they would like to participate in.”"
12 March 2011 Stanford Daily article "Constitutional Council rules in favor of ROTC advisory bill". Note: A 4-0 vote of the Constitutional Council decided that the non-binding question to the student body regarding support for ROTC will remain on the spring elections ballot.
14 March 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Women’s Coalition Rejects ROTC’s Return to Campus". Note: "All Women’s Coalition candidates must speak out against ROTC’s discriminatory policy towards trans people (as of now transwomen cannot join the ROTC program, which stands as gender discrimination) and its failure to adequately address the sexual violence, rape, and sexual assault of women serving in the military." However, it was not clear that constituent groups had even been consulted on this statement.
30 March 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Senate Considers Removal of ROTC Ballot Measure". Note: Some suggested that the non-binding ballot measure "could be “psychologically harmful” to transgender students who cannot fully participate in ROTC".
30 March 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Why ROTC is Important for Stanford" by Otis Reid. Note: Reid makes the positive arguments for ROTC, focusing in particular on the role of key people in bringing change from within.
1 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "Cowardice, Co-optation, and ROTC" by Zachary Warma ‘11 . Note: "What we have witnessed this year is the co-optation and exploitation of Stanford’s political and governmental processes by…two dozen, at most, students looking for a very public political power grab at the expense of ROTC, reasonable discourse and the greater student body. The leadership of SSQL, sympathizers in the “Women’s” Coalition, Stanford Democrats and SOCC has missed an opportunity to foster a productive dialogue on the matter, choosing instead to wage an emotionally charged battle based off of specious claims... Stanford’s educational mission would be failed if the Farm were to churn out America’s “next great leaders” who lack any knowledge or understanding of the armed forces."
3 April 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Columbia Votes for ROTC Return". Note: "The Columbia decision will likely influence Stanford’s faculty senate decision if the faculty senate is at all worried about public opinion. At this point, a no-vote would elicit from much of the public and conservative media a strong negative comparison between Stanford and other schools."
6 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Senate hears “Opposition to ROTC” bill". Note: Stanford's Undergraduate Senate considered a bill opposing ROTC because of discrimination against transgender people, but instead passed a bill opposing discrimination against transgender people but "not taking a stance" on ROTC.
6 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "Vote Abstain: What It Means and Why It Makes Sense" by John Haskell ‘12. Note: The Chief of Staff of the Stanford student body government argues that the vote on ROTC affects primarily two small communities - students interested in ROTC and transgender students. He argues that people in the majority not affected directly by this matter abstain, since the " minority voice should be able to sit on equal ground as the majority opinion".
6 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "Closing the Citizen-Solider Gulf" by Rebecca Young, M.A. ‘11. Note: The daughter of an Air Force officer writes that when she arrived at Stanford "I was struck that while I understood the nuances of civilian life, my civilian counterparts had virtually no notion of what life in the military entails. Worse, they seemed almost proud of their ignorance... Just as the concept of the citizen-soldier serves to sustain civic engagement and ensure political accountability, the idea of the warrior-scholar serves to provide enlightened military leadership and protect the core values of the population."
7 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Groups advocate ‘abstain’ on ROTC measure". Note: "John Haskell ’12, a student at the forefront of the movement, said that it is not to be taken to be an anti-ROTC campaign, but rather an option for students who either do not feel educated enough to vote or see the issue as one of civil rights. He said that students on both sides of the issue have joined the effort.“There are lots of reasons that people are abstaining, and it makes the most sense for both sides,” he said."
7 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Harris talk opposes ROTC". Note: David Harris ’67, who was imprisoned for 18 months for dodging the draft, cited opposition to the military as the reason to exclude ROTC. He said "What’s needed here is not better-trained officers; what’s needed here is fewer officers... We can’t keep dealing with the rest of the world through our armies".
7 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "Campaign to Abstain Obscures Student Opinion" by Miles Unterreiner ‘12 . Note: Unterreiner argues that votes to abstain will diminish opposition to ROTC and change the outcome in a way unrelated to the stated view of those proposing abstention as a way of making a statememnt about not voting on rights of others.
8 April 2011 Stanford Daily editorial "To end war and discrimination, bring back ROTC". Note: The editors assume that all ROTC courses would be open to all students, including those ineligible for commissioning. They also assume that the military has no control over its hiring policies, which is not correct - for instance, there are no statutes that specifically bar transgender people from the military. They also claim incorrectly that the military is made up disproportionately of the poor. They point out that keeping the military off campus increases the divide between the country's leaders and soldiers, and argue that this increases the probability of war.
8 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "ROTC – A Call for Inclusion" by Angelina Cardona ’11. Note: The presdent of the Stanford student body says that although having ROTC on campus would be a plus, "bringing back the institution of ROTC in its current form would harm our transgender community" and "demanding a change before allowing the institution to return to campus is one strong lever, amongst others, to changing discriminatory policies". She calls for contacting legislators to get change on the transgender issue, though it is not clear that any laws need to be changed to change the policy. "Once this change is made, I will enthusiastically welcome the return of ROTC to Stanford University."
8 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "ROTC and Women" by Ann Thompson ’11. Note: A Stanford Army ROTC student writes "The six female ROTC cadets and midshipmen at Stanford are baffled by news that the Women’s Coalition (WoCo), a body that claims to represent a wide swath of women’s student organizations, is actively opposing the return of ROTC to campus."
8 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "To those who would seek to prevent the return of ROTC at Stanford" by Dustin Barfield ’12 . Note: A Marine veteran writes "I understand your argument about transgender and disabled persons and the military, and I disagree with it. The argument about disabled persons is particularly weak given the nature of the job done by military personnel. And as for the argument about both groups, I hope that you will also be voting to disallow such groups as the Stanford Cardinal Football team from representing us as well until they allow transgender and disabled persons to compete. And yes, it is very much the same thing, with the exception that in the military, lives are on the line, not points."
8 April 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "The Polarization of the ROTC Debate" by Jack Duane Jr. Note: Arguing for the ROTC ballot referendum, he writes "The Faculty Senate knows that the LGBT community opposes the return of ROTC and they also know that many military affiliated Stanford students are highly supportive of it. What they don’t know, as of now, is how everyone else feels." An accompanying photo shows a poster highlighting President Obama's support for ROTC.
11 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Graphical analysis of ASSU election". Note: Supporters of ROTC in the student ballot referendum outnumbered opponents by more than 2 to 1, but almost as many abstained as voted to support ROTC.
22 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Committee supports ROTC return". Note: "In a report released today, the ad hoc committee investigating the potential return of ROTC to Stanford announced its support for the program. The report comes in anticipation of the Faculty Senate meeting next Thursday, where the issue will be voted on."
22 April 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Ad Hoc Committee Recommends Return of ROTC". Note: The committee voted unanimously that "The President of Stanford University should invite the U.S. military to reestablish an on-campus ROTC." It also enunciates an ROTC+ vision: "The Stanford ROTC Committee ... will recommend, on a case-by-case basis, whether an instructor be given a lecturer or visiting professor status... The courses in the Stanford-ROTC program may be eligible for either academic or activity course credit, following existing Stanford curriculum review and approval processes. The Stanford ROTC committee should encourage opportunities for Stanford faculty and ROTC instructors to design jointly taught courses that could meet both academic credit standards and ROTC training requirements."
22 April 2011 Stanford Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC report "Towards an on-campus ROTC program at Stanford University". Note: The committee was appointed by the Faculty Senate “to investigate Stanford’s role in preparing students for leadership in the military, including potential relations with ROTC”". It noted that "Stanford University from its inception has had a broadly civic and not merely an academic mission", which includes "some special responsibility to contribute to the success" of the public institutions of the United States and "the American military is one such institution". Discussing remaining objections to ROTC, it stated "Institutional disengagement is an unpromising way of generating the mutual criticism, respect, and understanding that would enable us to do precisely that. For example, the Committee noted that some of the most trenchant arguments that were presented to us against ROTC were marred by naïve and derogatory stereotypes of the American military. Unfortunately, such stereotypes are only to be expected given little contact between the military and our students, faculty, and staff. The increased contact that would likely characterize an on-campus ROTC program will contribute, the Committee believes, in a small but significant way to reducing the perceived gap between the military and civil society in the USA." Regarding suggestions that the culture of the university is too different from the culture of the military, the report writes "Obedience to lawful authority is certainly a part of military roles. But members of the officer corps must be able to do much more than obey orders. They must be capable of nuanced moral decision-making, independent problemsolving, and responsible leadership. Such qualities are intrinsic to the ideal of liberal education." Regarding the WikiLeaks issue, "ROTC students are “discouraged” by the military from reading materials on the WikiLeaks site because in so doing they may undermine their eligibility for future security clearance. But the discouragement is far from unique to ROTC students. Any student considering a career after graduation that would require security clearance would have good reason to avoid academic assignments that focus on classified documents. Yet no one could sensibly say that Stanford should be unwelcoming to all students who are contemplating careers in public service that would require security clearance."
22 April 2011 Stanford University News article "Stanford should invite ROTC back to campus, university committee says". Note: "Ewart Thomas, the committee's chair, will present the report and recommendations to the Faculty Senate at its April 28 meeting... The senate is expected to vote on the recommendations at the Thursday meeting... The April 28 Faculty Senate meeting, which is expected to attract wide interest on campus and from the media, will begin at 3:15 in Room 180 of the Law School."
22 April 2011 Bay Citizen article "Panel Recommends Returning ROTC to Stanford". Note: "Dr. David Spiegel, the chair of the faculty senate at Stanford University, told the Bay Citizen that he hasn't decided yet how he'll vote... "My read on it is that the sentiment is more in favor than against, but I don't know for sure"".
25 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Committee supports ROTC return". Note: "The 10-member committee voted unanimously in its supportive recommendation; however, unanimity was not required, according to the committee’s chair, psychology professor Ewart Thomas.“Our recommendation reflects inputs from every committee member; the language was massaged here and there, and it turned out to be possible to write the recommendation in such a way that all on the committee agreed to it,” Thomas wrote in an email to The Daily."
25 April 2011 Stanford Daily column "A Response to the Ad Hoc’s Recommendation for ROTC’s Return" by Cristopher Bautista. Note: Bautista writes "my rights are so unimportant to protect that I’m worth sacrificing for the greater good."
25 April 2011 PBS Newshour segment "At Stanford, Debate Brews Over Reviving ROTC Program on Campus". Note: PBS interviews many of the key voices in the ROTC debate at Stanford, including former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who said "We want the citizens of the country to have something to say and to participate in their army. And we want not just the citizens from the lower ranks of society, but the citizens who are going to the elite colleges."
27 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "ROTC at Stanford, Past and Present" by Milton Solorzano ‘07.
28 April 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "Country first, humanity second" by Sam Windley LL.M. ’11. Note: The president of Stanford Says No to War argues that the military not be given special treatment out of a sense of "“civic” mission". He applauds "the brave actions of the military personnel who refused to serve in the Iraq war".
28 April 2011 New York Times "At War" blog item "Stanford Debates R.O.T.C.’s Return" by Tim Hsia. Note: A West Point graduate now studying at Stanford Law School writes "Throughout this academic year, there have been military-themed lecture events. For example, a Military 101 seminar series was started by R.O.T.C. cadets and veterans to share with the greater Stanford community what military service entails. The speakers at these events have been senior active-duty officers from the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Hoover Institution. Furthermore, Stanford is a veteran-friendly campus, with a vibrant veteran community at its graduate schools and a generous Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Yellow Ribbon Program. There are more student veterans on campus — upwards of 50 — than there are R.O.T.C. cadets. Perhaps as a result, the debate here has been civil and thought-provoking."
28 April 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Faculty Senate Votes to Return ROTC (Aborted Live Blog)". Note: Whether ROTC programs restrict a student's major was discussed, and an amendment that all majors be allowed to ROTC students was passed in addition to the vote for ROTC.
29 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "Faculty Senate votes yes on ROTC return". Note: The vote was 28 to 9 with 3 abstentions. "Professor William Perry ’49 M.S. ’55 presented the initial proposal to investigate Stanford’s relationship with the military last year. He reminded the Faculty Senate that they would not be debating ROTC if Congress had not recently repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell.” “That repeal would not have happened without significant support from senior military officials in the U.S.,” he said. “Their enlightened views are obviously a product of their education. Stanford has the opportunity to help create military leaders that will later make these enlightened decisions. This is the single most important chance you will have to seize that opportunity.” “We can no longer free-ride on the public good known as national security,” added history professor David Kennedy ’63... University general counsel Debra Zumwalt said that formal recognition of ROTC would not violate the nondiscrimination policy as it currently stands. “Our policy prevents against illegal discrimination,” she explained. “Based on all the information we have, we do not see an illegal discrimination and [ROTC] does not violate our policy.”... The Faculty Senate ultimately voted in favor of the committee’s recommendation with three additional amendments, including a condemnation of the military’s discriminatory policies against transgender people. “Our support for reestablishing the ROTC program should not be misconstrued,” read a joint statement released by President John Hennessy and Provost John Etchemendy. “We understand the concerns about the military’s continuing discrimination against transgender people, and we share those concerns. But if the leadership of the military is drawn from communities that teach and practice true tolerance, change is more likely to occur. The U.S. military has demonstrated an ability and willingness to change over time, and we believe Stanford can contribute by providing leaders capable of helping create that change.”"
29 April 2011 Stanford Daily article "In their own words". Note: Some quotes about the ROTC decision: History professor David Kennedy '63 said “I thought it was the University community at nearly its best, taking on a controversial matter and dealing with it in a balanced and judicious way, and I think in the end weighing up all the pros and cons and coming to the right conclusion. The whole Stanford community can give itself a pat on the back for going about this the right way.”
29 April 2011 Stanford Report article "Stanford's Faculty Senate approves process for bringing ROTC back to campus". Note: "Scott Sagan, a professor of political science and a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC, said all ROTC programs require the study of ethics and war. Sagan, co-director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, said he was impressed when he reviewed two textbooks used by the Navy ROTC program at the University of California-Berkeley. He said they covered a wide spectrum of political theory as well as case studies of military crimes, from the 1968 My Lai Massacre in Vietnam to the prisoner abuse and torture that occurred in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq beginning in 2004." Philosophy professor Kenneth Taylor said "We have a military that's answerable to civilian authority... I think that's a very important thing. We should do our part to educate those people. We are in the business of educating the elite, right? Many of our students have aspirations of being part of the civilian authority that governs the military. We do our darnedest to educate them to be hard-thinking, right-thinking, morally responsible and morally responsive, even though our civilian authority isn't perfect. I don't see why we shouldn't do our darnedest to contribute to the education of the people who will be ultimately answerable to that civilian authority." The full text of the statement by President Hennessy and Provost Etchemendy is also given.
29 April 2011 Fiat Lux (Stanford Review) blog item "Let’s Get the Facts Right on ROTC" by Warner Sallman. Note: A gay member of the pro-ROTC movement discusses the restrictions on transgender people in the military.
2 May 2011 Stanford Daily column "Fighting the Good Fight" by Christopher Bautista. Note: Bautista criticizes "the subtle change to the nondiscrimination clause that added the word “unlawful” such that it no longer tolerated just “discrimination” but “unlawful” discrimination". Bautista also notes "The ROTC debate thrust transgender issues to the forefront not only at Stanford but also across the nation — something I could not even imagine two years ago when I was first coming out".
5 May 2011 Stanford Daily article "Reflections on the ROTC debate and decision" by John Etchemendy. Note: The provost of Stanford writes that "the Senate made its decision based on the value that ROTC would bring to the campus and the belief that Stanford has an obligation to help educate military leaders... Many senators, deeply troubled by the discrimination, were swayed by the hope that as more military leaders are drawn from communities like ours — communities where tolerance and acceptance are the norm — the more quickly any remaining discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity will genuinely cease." See response on 11 May.
11 May 2011 Stanford Daily op-ed "ROTC — Provost Etchemendy, Open, Not Close The Doors To Dissent!" by Jonathan Poto '13. Note: Responding to Etchemendy's 5 May op-ed, Poto calls upon him to "do more to show respect for the gravity of the issue". However, Poto expresses skepticism that the Stanford community will have any effect on the ability of transgender people to serve in the military in the future, and does not call upon the provost to take any particular action to make the case to the military that some transgender people should be allowed to serve in the military.
1 June 2011 Los Angeles Times article "Once a campus outcast, ROTC is booming at universities". Note: At the University of California at Berkeley, "Don Johnson, a rhetoric major from Oakland who is soon to become an Army second lieutenant, said off-campus antiwar activists have hassled him when he's worn his ROTC uniform. But no student ever bothered him."
11 November 2011 Stanford Daily article "Hennessy talks ROTC, GSB gift at Faculty Senate". Note: Discussing ROTC, Stanford's president said that "because of “budgetary difficulties the Department of Defense faces,” the University “will probably end up exploring alternative opportunities.” These may include alternative options for students who currently commute, forming a consortium with area schools and the United States Naval Academy or asking the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies (C-USP) to consider granting some academic credit to students who take ROTC courses off-campus."
15 November 2011 Stanford Daily article "Campus ROTC unlikely". Note: "The lack of progress is primarily due to low levels of student interest and concerns about financial sustainability, according to Senior Assistant to the President Jeff Wachtel." The alternatives are likely to be collaboration with nearby ROTC programs and "could include anything from allowing other ROTC units to hold events on campus to hosting ROTC courses taught by Stanford faculty for ROTC students from Stanford and the partner universities."
13 June 2012 Stanford University News article "Stanford to offer activity and academic credit for ROTC classes next year". Note: "Students will not receive letter grades for ROTC courses, but the activity and academic credits they receive for the courses will make obtaining a diploma a bit easier, and the time and effort spent taking them will be acknowledged on their Stanford transcripts." The Stanford Subcommittee on ROTC report "judged the academic value of the more advanced ROTC courses to be worth some academic credit, but the work required in these classes is insufficiently granular to warrant academic letter grades."
5 October 2012 Stanford Daily article "ROTC cadets wear uniforms to increase awareness of civilian-military gap". Note: "Recent changes include funding from the Haas Center for Public Service toward Zipcars that allow cadets to commute to their training sites, recognition as an official student organization, permission to take part in the annual Activities Fair in White Plaza and a physical office for the Army branch of ROTC in Sweet Hall. But most importantly for Lopez, cadets can now receive activities and academic credit for their ROTC classes."
13 January 2013 Stanford Daily op-ed "ROTC and the Academy are Compatible" by Dominick Healey. Note: "After a quick perusing of the “Stanford Says No To War” website, I found myself laughing at the absurdity of “evidence” being presented against the ROTC program at Stanford... In my military science courses, we spent the majority of our time discussing the philosophy of ethics, the politics of the Near East, the history of our nation and even got to slip in some theology with a 25-page paper on the injustice of the Iraq War within the framework of Walzer’s just war theory. I fail to see how the study of history, philosophy, theology and political science falls outside of the realm of “significant issues, themes, ideas and values of human identity and existence.”" He suggests that anti-ROTC students pay attention to ROTC students: "You are going to find out that there was a whole population of men and women who were developing themselves at light speed while you were trying to shut them out, and you will be competing with thousands of us in the real world. We keep our hair cut close, we keep our faces shaved clean and we keep our bodies in shape. We can wake up at 0530 any day of the week, work a 20-hour day and then do it over and over and over again. We don’t need vacations, we don’t need weekends, we never sleep through our alarms and we’re never late for appointments. We’re respectful, we’re honorable, we serve others selflessly, we always tell the truth, we know how to shake hands, we know how to speak publicly, we’re excellent managers and we’re excellent leaders. We’ll be responsible for 50 people and millions of dollars of equipment, on our first day. We’ll have real people’s lives in our hands, we don’t break under pressure, we make the right decision quickly and we’re highly trained at applying our highly educated minds to highly challenging problems. We’ll have done all this before we’re 25 years old." See response on 15 January.
11 February 2012 Stanford Daily article "Female ROTC cadets look forward to combat eligibility". Note: Lauren McCune ’15, an ROTC cadet, said "The one thing that makes a big difference to me is that I’ll actually be able to be the S2, the strategy [and] risk-assessment officer attached to each platoon, and now I could get to be with an infantry platoon".
8 February 2017 Stanford Daily article "Cadets discuss history, challenges of ROTC at Stanford ". Note: The article describes the 27 hour a week educational and training committment of Army ROTC students at Stanford, lengthened by the students having to commute to the unit at Santa Clara University.

Please contact us if you have more links to add.