comments, concerns, or just plain bitching

Dear Generation,

Let me start off in response by pointing out the irony of last week’s edit note, which is that you are attacking the United States Military, the organization which is ultimately responsible for the defense of your freedom of speech. But it is your right nonetheless. Putting that aside, let’s look at your extremely flawed and weak argument against ROTC and therefore the military in general. That is because most rational thinking Americans understand that there is a need for the military, they understand that the troops are only doing what the government asks. At no point in my three years of ROTC training have I been subject to any politically motivated instruction. The only ideologies we are taught, come from the Army’s core values, which are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless-service, integrity, honor and personal courage.

You also state that UB does not support ROTC, which is entirely incorrect. UB pays for housing for many cadets as well as the fact that we conduct many of our training and recruiting events on campus. It should also be noted that the National Guard has a recruiting center right on South Campus.

Your notion that UB has maintained politically neutral environment is also wrong. I don’t know how many classes you’ve taken so far here at UB but it doesn’t take a political analyst to figure out that most professors here are left leaning and it very often permeates into their teachings.

As far as “homosexuals not being allowed in the military” is concerned, that is not entirely accurate. There is a policy put in place by President Clinton known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” which is self-explanatory but what it basically means is that gays are allowed in the military as long as they are not open about it. The bottom line is that the military is for fighting and winning wars; it should not be the subject of misguided social experiments.

I hope your editorial isn’t a sign of the times to come. I hope people will continue to support the troops even if they disagree with the policies they are carrying out and have enough sense to recognize the importance of ROTC and that the divisive violent actions of Vietnam era extremists should not be a justification for anyone, even those vehemently against governmental or military policies to destroy ROTC property or harass its members.

Sincerely,

Cadet Christopher Partridge

Dear Christopher,

To begin with, I’ll just let everyone know that we received a lot of mail on this topic this week. We expected it, and were happy to not be let down. However, that doesn’t mean we’re going to give you a pat on the back and send you on your merry way just for writing in. That edit note was approved by our executive board, and published for a reason. I’ll go through your letter step by step and lay it out for you.

First, that it attacks the U.S. military. Well, you may be right there. You say it’s ironic that it attacks the institution that defends the right to attack it. THAT IS THE POINT. That is why the military is there; to allow U.S. citizens to question everything, including, and most importantly, their own government. If everyone was like you and blindly followed orders (I realize that’s your job as a cadet, but not as a citizen) we could very soon be living in a police state. And nowhere in the edit note does it say that there is no need for a military. Give me a break.

Second, you make the mistake of confusing government and the military as an institution, with the troops. In your letter, it’s quite clear that you make that distinction, but you are unable to see that same, and very obvious I might add, distinction in the edit note. Never does it say that the troops are to blame for anything. In fact, the entire point of the piece is that there is a worry that the people in ROTC are being pressured in ways that they shouldn’t. It’s a defense of “the troops.”

Third, that UB does not maintain a politically neutral environment because some teachers include politics in their lectures. Well, hate to break it to you, but the UB administration can’t sit in on every lecture for every professor. What they can do though, is not allow programs, like ROTC, that do promote politically divisive attitudes. They do what they can.

Fourth, your “don’t ask don’t tell” argument was mentioned by many of the people that wrote in. And all of you are wrong. Why shouldn’t gays be legally allowed in the military if heterosexuals are? Maybe the law is not enforced as strictly as it could be, and that is of course a good thing, but if we’re talking equality, and I hope that we are, that law is completely discriminatory. If the military really doesn’t mind gays, take the law that says it is incompatible with military service off the books. It’s wrong, and it’s as simple as that.

Finally, that the editorial isn’t a sign of times to come. Oh Christopher, my heart is breaking. The ability to question government and not be censured is important above all other rights. It’s the definition of freedom. As I said above, nowhere in the piece did it say we don’t support the troops. You would have to be a moron not to respect the men and women that fight to protect our rights, and questioning the motives of those that put those troops in harm’s way is nowhere near the same thing as questioning the troops. And guess what. The burning of ROTC property was for the sole reason of trying to get Congress to get the troops out of Vietnam. I personally wouldn’t call that harassment. But that’s just me.

Sad that these times are bringing censorious letters like yours,

Jenny Rose

Senior Editor