To the Editor:
The Reserve Officers' Training Corps debate has become a tired vehicle for Brown's most extreme voices. In his recent column, Oliver Rosenbloom '13 continues to fan the flames, this time calling on "civic duty" to support the military on campus ("The fundamental dilemma behind the ROTC debate," Oct. 3). While the majority of the article has a punishing tone for a seemingly "out-of-touch and ungrateful" campus, he confusingly ends by saying that he has no answer for the University. In a half page of newsprint, there ought to be something unequivocal and supported.
Campus dialogue around issues like ROTC is dangerously bad at a University whose self-image is so polarized. The ROTC debacle is a talking point for many left-leaning students who know little about the program. For conservatives, it's an example of institutional disrespect for the military by elitist liberals.
In a subtle nod to late Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, Rosenbloom suggests that we have overlooked our civic duty. The problem is that so little of this kind of rhetoric is supported beyond gut feelings. Rosenbloom cites no examples of the Brown community "demonizing the military and the men and women who protect our liberty." He addresses none of the practical issues that were raised about implementing ROTC at Brown, e.g., strain on resources or clashes with Brown's New Curriculum. He suggests that adherence to Brown's liberal values could be relaxed to adhere to nationalistic ones, but that quickly becomes an ideological argument. The architecture of a persuasive argument has to include more than ideology, especially after a year of debate.
Sadly, I no longer read The Herald's opinions columns with the expectation of learning something new. Even an exhausted topic like the ROTC debate can be worthwhile to read if there are new perspectives or supporting evidence, but these seem to be in short supply. We should be trying to teach and learn instead of appealing to ideology.
Steven Gomez GS
