Proposed ROTC Program
UMBC is currently considering the fast track creation of an Army ROTC program on campus. This would create a Department of Military Sciences, which would be given space on campus, conduct classes for ROTC members, and place military personnel on campus as instructors.
Two campus wide meetings to discuss this plan are tentatively schedule for Tues, May 13 and Wed, May 14. Final time and place TBA.
There is also a petition already set up for those who are looking to voice their opposition to this.
There were articles about this in InsideCharmCity.com and the Baltimore Sun last week. I personally thought we already had an ROTC program here, so this is all news to me.
Anyone with feelings/opinions on this matter is more than welcome to share. I’m sure there will be many passionate responses on an issue like this, so I’ll remind everyone to please play nicely. This story seems to be in the works, so we’ll keep you updated as it progresses. I’m sure TRW will have something about this tomorrow, too. Thanks.
EDIT: There are two meetings next week for the campus community to discuss this opportunity: Tuesday, May 13, at 1:00 p.m. or Wednesday, May 14, at 12:00 noon. Both will be held in the UC Ballroom.
Filed under: Academics, Campus life | Tagged: treeveins
from what I’ve heard, the ROTC people we see around campus are part of a satellite program from Johns Hopkins. Personally I’m inclined to be supportive of this proposed program, but I’m interested in hearing people’s (civil) opinions either way.
I just had a discussion about this issue at a meeting today, and will bring up some of the points raised. One, there is a procedure for becoming a department on this campus. It is a democratic decision making process that goes through a faculty senate. The proposed ROTC program bypassed all of these procedures. Think about it- why have we not heard about this before? It came out of nowhere. So I think it’s unfair that they did not have to follow the same guidelines as every other department. Secondly, UMBC has a detailed nondiscrimination policy. It can be found here http://www.umbc.edu/ola/nondiscrimination.html
this policy explicitly states it does not discriminate students of any race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in any of its academic programs and activities. As we all know, the military has a “don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ regarding non-heterosexuals in the military. I think allowing the ROTC program on campus is a violation of our nondiscrimination policy. That is all for now.
we have a nondiscrimination policy and thats all that needs to be said
however, i do agree with a few of the things that the ROTC will bring to campus.
If the ROTC program is brought to campus, then I would love to see some sort of concession given to the LGBT population at UMBC namely a full time LGBT staff member
Here are the details for the town hall meetings:
TUESDAY, MAY 13th, 1:00PM, in UC 312
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14th, 12:00 NOON, in Commons 331
Shame this came up at such a busy time during the semester, but what can you do? Personally, I’m not crazy about the program, mostly because I’m a bleeding heart liberal, and because the ROTC discriminates against non-heterosexuals. That being said I plan on attending the town hall meetings with an open mind, but I do have a lot of questions.
How many UMBC students would creating this host site benefit? (i.e. how many UMBC students are ROTC?)
What sort of space would the program require? Who would this space be taken from? (when I last checked there wasn’t a great deal of unused space at UMBC)
How does this program advance the mission of an “honors” university? What are Military Sciences anyway?
Would the administration even be considering this if there wasn’t some funding being offered? Why isn’t the correct procedure for a department on campus being followed?
How would the members of the community who support the creation of a Department of Military Sciences feel about the creation of a Peace Studies Department?
Just some ideas for thought.
I was a cadet in Air Force ROTC and I support the creation of an ROTC department on this campus. It is very difficult to be a crosstown cadet. You are unable to participate in many of the activities that are held at the host school, you must wake up much earlier, spend more money on transportation, parking and various other fees at the host school in addition to your own home school. All of this affects whether or not a cadet is able to able to compete effectively for scholarships and other opportunities. The creation of such a program would benefit a lot of students who would be otherwise unable to afford to go to school.
Everyone can agree the discrimination is bad. However, for anyone who decides to join the military they know that they are subject to different and stricter codes of conduct. Military members knowingly accept these restrictions on their liberties in order that they may serve their country. All personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and higher code of honor. For example, a commissioned officer is not allowed to use contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. This clearly diminishes the right to free speech but any officer who takes the oath understands this. There is a reason why we don’t have military coups in this country, and these regulations help to make sure of that.
Also, I don’t think the creation of a military science department should go through the same procedures as another department because such a program will be primarily funded by the military and not by the school.
Felonius, you make an interesting point about the peace studies department. I had never thought about that.
Personally, I think adding a department that openly discriminates against an entire community of people is not congruent with UMBC’s values.
According to the article on insidecharmcity.com, there are only 21 UMBC student’s participating at the ROTC program at Johns Hopkins.
I guess I just don’t see the point of adding an entire department for something 21 students are participating in.
Musical theatre club has more participants than that. Why don’t we add a musical theatre department to UMBC?
21 is a large number for most ROTC departments. very few schools are as large as virginia tech’s corps of cadets for example. those 21 make up more than half of the consortium based out of JHU. essentailly, what would most likely end up happening is further down the road, umbc would become the host school and cadets from other campuses like villa julie, jhu, and morgan would commute to umbc for classes and such.
also, for those concerned about funds and such coming from the school, since it’s a federal program, money comes from there for its operating costs for the most part (some things come from school like certain rental fees of rooms at times, etc). this is also a reference to the point. if umbc receives certain federal grants, and was built as a federal land grant school, then the school policies really don’t matter and federal agencies will override state ones.
also, as a queer liberal, i still applied and got into academies and had other ROTC scholarships to other schools. i recognized that, for certain things, i’d just have to keep my mouth shut. if you get hired at some companies (private ones, not gov’t) you have to keep shut or you get fired, etc. so complaints about that only the military or gov’t agencies are a source of this discrimination and 1st amendment infringement, is just pure bs.
lastly, many schools have both rotc and peace studies programs. AU is both a satellite campus for ROTC based out of georgetown, but AU is also massively involved with peace studies, much more than umbc. it’s also ranked much more consistently as a queer community friendly school, more liberal, et. somehow though, they manage to exist in peace.
personally, i don’t think an army rotc branch is needed on campus, but for reasons other than being anti-military or it being discriminatory. space for my department was woefully screwed over and not supported by the school, and i would like to see further development of programs already in the school rather than increasing the bureaucracy and departments in the school.
@ Cassie, then should the anthropology department be shut down? only like 6 of us were in my graduating class, and overall, i believe the department was never larger than about 35 students. it has its own faculty, senate member, funds, etc. i personally find the concept of whether a program is developed solely by size to woefully inadequate.
like i said before though, depending on federal funding and land grant development, then this could all be a moot point and the school itself could have little say and be bound by further state and federal laws/regs.
I did not mean that the size should be any kind of deciding factor, but it is an interesting point.
I agree that UMBC should focus on strengthening departments it currently has.
Also, the article mentioned that this department would be housed in an unused campus building. Does anyone know what building it’s talking about?
@Why is Walter Sondheim smoking cigarettes?, A “concession” to the non-heterosexual community by creating an earmarked position is a bad idea– academic positions need to go to the most qualified candidates, not to make statements about military politics.
UMBC students participate in ROTC already, the difference would be their ability to receieve scholarships for their participation and not commute to Johns Hopkins.
@Cassie
I think there might be more people who would join ROTC if it is at UMBC so the numbers will probably increase
It doesn’t get much more gay-friendly than UMBC. There’s nothing more for the gay community to win.
We’re talking here about a free resource that will, by the looks of it, only cost UMBC office space and classrooms (aka practically nothing) but will attract good students and help people to go college. If you have something against the military, that’s all well and good. But seriously now, is that really a good enough reason to limit the opportunities presented to other people? While the debate about gays in the military may be far from settled, please appreciate that a) there is another side in this debate that is completely legitimate even if you don’t agree with it, b) you are probably not an expert on the military so please don’t pretend to be one, and c) this shouldn’t prevent access to opportunities at UMBC.
And really now, a Department of Peace Studies? Do you know how many serious students of international relations we have at UMBC? Answer: there are a few each year who graduate with any chance of getting a job in the field. I mean, really just a handful. And you want a department? I’ve worked for the Poli Sci Department and they’re suffering for professors as it is, but the whole department is almost entirely liberal/left-leaning and anti-war. There are upper-level classes on International Organization that suffer for lack of serious students.
Long story short, leaving aside for a moment UMBC’s less-than-stellar office space situation, there’s really no good reason at all to oppose the creation of this program. Where were the protesters for the Aging Studies program? That was created with a donation to UMBC but takes up our office space. Those bastards! Except it’s easier to oppose the men and women who play a central role in stabilizing world politics (aka protecting our freedom) than old people.
A Peace Studies dept? I thought we already had that, but it was called the Poli Sci department… or the sociology department… or the social work department… or the MLL department…or the GWST department…
You get the point. There are plenty of departments on this campus full of professors that preach peace, love, acceptance, and puppies for all. I hardly think that one department with a different set of values is going to single-handedly change everything UMBC stands for.
We already have an ROTC program, we just share it with Johns Hopkins as they are the host school therefore this is pretty much a null point. Basically it is whether we want to branch off from Hopkins program which would allow more UMBC students to receive ROTC scholarships.
What would this mean for UMBC in the long run?
One of my suitemates was in ROTC during first semester, and I wasn’t really impressed with what I observed during that time.
Granted, I’m entirely apathetic because I know from my family’s experiences that being in the military really blows a lot of the time. The thought of joining has crossed my mind, but I have no absolute necessity.
I’ll echo the above: I just don’t see any reason we should.
@James G
One suitemate is adequate to turn you off to an entire program?
While military service has huge downsides–not least of which being the real possibility of serving in Iraq–many ROTC members would otherwise be unable to attend college at all without massive university debt.
I think we need to make financing an education at UMBC a more attractive and viable option, particularly given the current economic situation.
@ A bunch of people
The whole idea of a “Peace Studies” Department to balance out a Military Sciences Department is misguided. Military Sciences, to the best of my knowledge as someone not in the field, is about how to wage war, or battles/conflicts of any kind, in a way that will maximize effectiveness of victory and minimize losses, if possible on both sides. It is not a war-mongering group. In fact, I’m sure they teach deterrence of war, with lethal combat as a last option. In that respect, “Peace Studies” would be like poli sci or sociology or something like those, finding a diplomatic solution to problems between people.
Additionally, ROTC provides many scholarships to attend college, and we should not have UMBC students lose out on that opportunity. I think an ROTC program will be a benefit to our campus. Funding will come from the federal gov’t and space can be found for the few classes. And if 21 people isn’t enough for you, think of how many more may participate if they didn’t have to go to JHU at sunrise every day.
@ Graduating but cares anyway….
idk what you thought I meant, but a “full time GLBT” staff member is someone who would be staff on hand to best service the GLBT community at UMBC. Plenty of colleges have them and the was legislation to have one here but it was caught up in the red tape and bureaucracy.
If they’re going to do something that discriminates against the community, they might as well do something that supports it as well
I don’t really know how the program works, does anyone know if non-heterosexual students have limitations placed on them within the ROTC program proposed at UMBC or only if they continue on in the military after graduation?
If students do have limits placed on them under the programs being considered, what kind?
Are there going to be classes open to all students?
Are the scholarships and educational opportunities different in anyway other than proximity to the current program?
Students who decided to attend UMBC did so knowing there is not a military science program, electing not to add one at this precise moment in time wouldn’t change the things that lead students UMBC in the first place.
Why is it necessary to fast track the program?
I am not a big fan of having a military presence at UMBC, but if other student are, and it would help them achieve their life goals I am not interested in limiting their ability to do so. It is very important to me that UMBC to stand up for the non-discrimination policy.
I understand grant money is important, and offering diverse opportunities matters for the future of our school, Never the less, the idea of having any type of department which restricts people based on their hetero or non-hetero status seems wrong.
I worry this department would make some students feel unwelcome, or disrespected, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea to fast track this decision. This seems like an issue that deserves some public debate other than free-hour during finals.
I am also concerned about the message it would send about UMBC’s commitment to equal rights for not just the GLBT community but all the other groups covered in the non-discrimination policy.
@ kate
I’ll try these the best to my experience from application processes, friends currently in programs or on duty, and my own family history.
The limitations are harsh, but only if the charges are pressed and such. I know many out/non-heteros both in ROTC and current military, and many who are not. If discovered and you ahve a commanding officer who is a douche, you are discharged from the service, and lose all accompanying benefits. However, I know many who are out, and have had no problems with it. The one I do know who was discharged was out for a long time, but his homosexuality was later used when he had a supervising officer not enjoy owrking with him, file other complaints that did not do anything to my friend, and then the ranking officer pulled the gay card to get him discharged. That’s the only reason he was discharged, and friends in service protested. Many keep quiet about sexuality to prevent that, and only let a few know who they feel they can trust. However, this is no different for voicing counter political views publicly known and the like, which can get you discharged, or in more extreme cases, charged with treason. That’s why active duty people tend be quieter on issues like Iraq, whereas discharged vets can be more vocal.
Some of the lower level classes can be open to all students(as far as i remeber), whereas upper level courses and some events, like FTX (field training exercises) will not.
Scholarships tend to go to students enrolled at the host school in an absurdly high amount (sometimes pushing 90-95%). So right now, out of the 21 UMBC students enrolled as ROTC cadets who travel to JHU, I would guess that at most 5 have major scholarships for the program (and that is being EXTREMELY generous), whereas the population of cadets at JHU would be much better funded for scholarships.
With the larger amount of ROTC students here compared to JHU and other campuses making up the unit, this move of classes to UMBC and making it the host school in my opnion, is more of a move to make the largest participating school the host school.
While your comment about the students being here knowing there was not a Military Science department on campus, they did enroll at UMBC for whatever reason (perhaps could not get into JHU, favored a course program, afford state tuition, etc) AND decide to do ROTC. For me, when I was applying to service academies and ROTC programs, UMBC was about the 12th school on my list. It was my safety-safety-safety school. Unless I received massive tuition aid, which was unlikely (due to my parents making to much to qualify for large aid, but not enough to really make that much of a payment), and being the stereotypical white male (albeit queer and liberal), many scholarship and aid venues were closed off to me. Also, I felt interested in doing so, so I applied to those schools and only selected UMBC when they gave me a full ride scholarship with no payback (unlike service years I would owe otherwise). Without that UMBC scholarship, which was the only substantial academic scholarship I received as well as the largest non military financial aid, I would not have been able to afford college. Had I accepted the military aid through ROTC or academies, well, to be honest, I would most likely be active duty in some hot zone.
Also, how much of this is fast tracked is interesting to me. ROTC has been on campus for a long time now, and has held classes and PT here before, people just tended not to notice it. I know for a fact that several times I would work out with them during PT in the RAC. So, since students have been enrolled, and on campus already, with events held here, this might be a reason it gets more of a fst track treatment. It’s already an extension of a department on campus. Instead, now other students would come here most likely, and an office would be used (I’m guessing in one of the more abandoned parts of FA, or ACIV) and classes held here.
While I understand the concerns about discriminatory remarks, behaviors, etc (and I truly do), I feel many groups can be just as guilty of making someone feel unwelcome, uncomfy. Many times, I was made to feel uncomfortable or unwelcome by groups (as were others) and many of those concerns were brushed off. This issue of being a diverse campus, but not much legitimate interaction between them or outsiders is one that needs to be addressed in general, not just with this.
Also, concerns about specific issues of welcoming or not should be addressed to a higher level of military authority. The Professor of Military Science and cadets will have no power over it themselves and can get in trouble themselves if certain things are not followed. It is more effective to lodge those complaints (simutaneously if you care) at DoD, Army Command, and other ranking military bodies.
Also, as mentioned before, depending on certain situations and finances of the school related to the government, the school’s establishment, etc, the issue may be out of the school’s hands and the Army can see fit to make UMBC a host school, regardless of protest and concern from president, faculty senate, and student body. That, combined with the unit already being substantial for ROTC size being part of UMBC and enrollment, etc, might have led to this “fast track”.
With all this said, I do not advocate the establishment of a department at THIS particular time, but in all honesty, would rather have the department at the larger program AND state school of UMBC than the smaller unit size and private school of JHU. There are too many issues in departments as they exist now before formally developing another at UMBC, and that goes for any program in all honesty. Should it be discussed further, yes, but at this point, I would be more concerned about financial issues, space issues, timing issues, equipment placement and development. These things are all logistical nightmares to begin with at UMBC and provide another substantial means to combatting current establishment rather than just relying on a non-discriminatory code (which in many cases mean jack, because you can be non-hetero, be fired for some ramrodded bulls**t reason, but everyone knows its for being non hetero).
There is a Facebook group in support of ROTC at UMBC that is growing very quickly. It currently has 311 members, up from 200 at around 5 pm. You can find it here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17481888054
The way I see it, UMBC really has nothing to lose by adding an ROTC program on campus. It will increase access to education for those otherwise not able to afford it, has the potential to bring more students on campus and the students not participating in the program probably won’t really notice many differences at UMBC. ROTC doesn’t really affect those not involved in it. The program won’t cost the University much–the Army/government pays for it.
Having a military sciences department (and ROTC students are NOT restricted to only studying military sciences, I’ve known ROTC students who have studied chemistry, history, political science, etc) does not detract from the academic goals of the university and really in no way conflicts with UMBC being an “honors” university. Even a few ivy league schools (Princeton and Cornell) have ROTC programs.
Come join the facebook group for students in support of ROTC on campus!
Thanks Anon(12:51)!
I have had very limited contact with the military in any capacity, and I don’t understand it well, your post helped me understand some things. It sounds like ROTC has some positive things to add to campus even if they are not things that will benefit me directly. I want to try to keep an open mind about this even though my gut reaction is not so positive.
I haven’t had time to give this issue a lot of thoughtful analysis, and I am concerned this fast tracking means decisions may be made in haste without all the information. I understand the military bears a special status in our society, and yet I am still a bit surprised they have the right to establish programs at our school without following the standard procedures.
Sounds like this may already be out of the school’s hands and they could just be trying to spin it, and get the best deal they can on the details. Is there a way to find that out?
I think no matter how this plays out i think it will leave a bad taste in my mouth if UMBC does not stand by it’s commitiment to students, staff and community at large to honor it’s anti-discrimination policy. It makes me feel like they take my freedoms less than seriously. As if they will provide me or any person who comes into contact with the university fair and equal treatment only when the circumstances are easy.
How would you expect this program to handle ADA related issues, there are a lot of students who qualify under ADA for protection from discrimination, we have students who are blind, in wheelchairs, have learning disabilities, epilepsy….. these students are mostly easily accomodated in other departments. Any ideas about how this might play out for students with different sets of abilities? Would the same opportunities be available to them?
What about women? I know there are some complicated issues about women and the military which I’m not fully familiar with either, does anyone know how this plays out in a college level program?
If ROTC can improve our school and is something other students value, I’ll go with the flow, but I’m not yet convinced of a positive net gain. I am willing to really give the issue serious consideration…and I’m not sure I can do that by 1 o’clock today during finals. When are the final decisions being made?
How has the Army delt with these issues at other schools? I know this can’t be the first time this has come up.
There are other reasons for opposing ROTC. I haven’t read all of the comments above because I don’t want to forget what I’m about to say, but I’ll read them later, so I hope I’m not repeating what someone else has already said. But there are more reasons for opposing ROTC. The first is kind of a side point and not necessarily relevant, but a flaw with ROTC in general is that it provides full scholarships to people who otherwise couldn’t afford college…who then have to join the military. Obviously I support scholarships and education for people who might not otherwise get it. But why not expand merit scholarship opportunities or financial aid opportunities instead? ROTC essentially allows poorer people and minorities to be placed at the front lines. I know military service in this country isn’t compulsory, but what we have (in some cases, not all) is people joining up because they have few other options.
Another reason is that if the military has its own department at UMBC, they would have equal weight with the other departments and have the ability to participate in administrative decisions that affect the whole university. Personally, I do not want the military to have any say in how our university is run. I know we are a public university which receives money from tax dollars, but all the same, I want to keep military influence and decision-making power out.
I finished reading the comments and I have a few more things to add:
I’ve heard that the department of Military Sciences would be housed in the Alumni House on Wilkens Avenue.
I am extremely concerned about the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and their open discrimination against people who identify as GLBT. It is incredibly outdated and should be repealed, and there is no place for that at UMBC. That should not be tolerated.
I do not know exactly how this “fast-track” would occur, or how the process of establishing ROTC at UMBC works. I am under the impression that there is a distinct possibility that UMBC does not have a say and that the military and US government can strong-arm its way onto campus because we are a public university. If it is true that UMBC does not truly have a choice and is in some ways being forced to accept ROTC, that is a complete abomination and absolutely infuriating. We might be a public university, but that shouldn’t give the military the right to force its presence on our campus and invite itself to have a say in administrative decisions.
@Katie
Except… expanding merit and financial aid opprotunities costs the University money. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, but where will the money come from? The Army funds the scholarships for their students. ROTC may allow poorer people and minorities to be placed on the front lines, but, as you say, it also allows them to get an education. Do YOU see away to get funding for alternatives?
Ultimately the choice as to whether or not someone should join the military to pay for college should be up to individual students. Besides, ROTC allows students to enter the military as commissioned officers–better positions that those who just enlist straight out of high school, hoping to get the GI bill to help them with school later.
If you don’t want to join the military, don’t join ROTC. But don’t try to stop other students from taking advantage of this opprotunity that for some, means the difference between making something of themselves, and spending their lives working at menial minimum wage jobs.
Saying ROTC and the military in general help people get an education is a joke. With 2 or 3 or 4 deployments each lasting 12-15 months, tell me when these men and women have time to register or finish a semster?
UMBC not allowing ROTC on campus doesn’t mean we’re trying to stop people from joining the military, it just means we’re not encouraging it or providing a forum for training men and women not to think for themselves (e.g. not being able to speak out against current administrations and policies).
@ Amy
Where are you getting this information from? Every ROTC person that I have known did not get deployed until after graduation. They had occasional weekend and summer commitments, but the deployment doesn’t happen until post-graduation. And if ROTC students want to go to graduate school, they can even usually get an educational deferment.
@everyone
It seems like most of the opponents to ROTC on campus don’t really know anything about the program, and it’s frankly pretty frustrating. http://www.goarmy.com/rotc is a good place to start. Inform yourself before you start forming opinions based on erroneous ideas that you’ve somehow schemed up in your head. This faq page may be especially useful: http://www.goarmy.com/rotc/parents_and_advisors.jsp#faq01
I’m saying that the military in general does not have a commitment to education.
And it is hardly erroneous to claim that the military, and by extension, the ROTC is not an inclusive environment with regards to homosexuals, or that members are supposed to forgo their personal beliefs and pledge allegiance to their commander in chief.
I’m married to the military, and in my experience, it ruins more lives than it doesn’t.
I was in the same situation as sonic being a crosstown Air Force ROTC cadet. It was very difficult to have to commute multiple times a week from UMBC to College Park (on 95 in traffic early in the morning and still have to make it back to UMBC in time for classes) and it is for this reason that many students who might be interested in ROTC are unable to join. I think many people are looking at how they feel against the military and not necessarily at the ROTC program and what it can offer students who do feel that the military is a good option and opportunity for them.
I agree that there is probably a factor of ignorance here. What exactly is ROTC? What exactly will happen if this program is implemented? I think more people need to be aware of this before they just blindly go against the idea.
To clear up some of the misconceptions being batted around, here is the memo sent around to the faculty senate- it was distributed to the MLL list serv a week or so ago.
Senators:
This message is to report to you that the US Army has approached UMBC with the offer of placing an ROTC unit at UMBC. At present, UMBC is a satellite ROTC program, with 23 UMBC undergraduates attending ROTC training at Johns Hopkins University. This change would allow the students to remain on the UMBC campus and not need to make the weekly trip to Johns Hopkins for their training and ROTC course work. Also, it would create an ROTC scholarship program with UMBC students as its primary objective. In the present program, scholarships are awarded to eligible JHU students, and any remaining money is available for the UMBC satellite program. If UMBC accepts the offer to host an ROTC unit starting this fall, the Army has money available to make it happen, including scholarship money for students starting this fall.
There are administrative, academic, and philosophic issues that need to be addressed. I will try to detail some of these and the possible “answers” to these.
Perhaps the simplest to examine first are the administrative issues.
The ROTC unit would be a Department of Military Science. This department would be staffed by the Army and it would contain four to six military personnel and one or two civilians. These individuals are be paid by the Army and report to the Army. Nominated by the Army, the University would review the recommended individuals and accept or reject the nominated persons. The Department would have the same status as the Physical Education Department, reporting directly to the Provost. The Department would attend meetings where decisions affecting their operations are discussed; however, they would not have a vote in University business or operations. This unit would be located in one of the houses that UMBC owns (near the police station on Wilkins Avenue). At present, the house is unused and it would require minimal investment for this use.
Next to address are the academic issues.
At present, UMBC students who are in the ROTC program have their courses count as credits taken in a semester and their grades count in their GPA; however, these credits do not count toward graduation. This situation would continue while the UGC and Senate examine the courses, and determine how the courses would fit into the academic program at UMBC. The courses do count toward graduation for JHU students. The students do not minor in military science at JHU although they do on some other campuses. There are many different way that the academic issues are handled across various campuses, and we can set the academic rules for this as with any other courses. So with regard to the academic issues, I guess those could be put off until the Fall Semester when committees are ready to deal with them.
Finally, the philosophic issues.
As you can imagine, these are probably the most difficult ones to address. Not that there are not arguments pro and con on this, but any short-term discussion has little chance of changing someone’s views on this. Everyone should have a chance to be heard and his or her ideas examined. Beyond this, I do not know what else I can say.
Ya know, ROTC isn’t mandatory. Don’t like it? Don’t join.
@ Katie
I know it was said already, but i want to reiterate that expanding merit scholarships and all is nice, but the funds for the ROTC scholarships come from the department of defense. the university administration and financial aid/scholarship does nothing in that selection.
and instead of expanding their scholarships UMBC is downsizing the ones they already have, like the University scholar, which now covers full cost for first semester, but each semester after that, remains at that first semester fixed price, forcing the student to pay the ever increasing difference, whereas it used to cover everything for 4 years.
@ Amy
You can’t be deployed in ROTC until after you graduate and receive your commission. As a ROTC student you are not active duty perssonel, have no rank other than cadet, and real military people don’t care what you say. The closest thing to deployment they get is the summer between junior and senior years, they are sent to a non-combat, domestic unit as a “third liutenant” and assigned to help out, just to get a feel of what it feels like in an actual job, etc. It’s like a military internship. It lasts about 2 months, and then it’s a return to school. You have to have degree in hand before any sort of action, so your comment about not being able to register or finish is already out the window.
Second, ROTC is ALREADY on campus as an enrollable course and all. You can’t say “not allowing it on campus” when it is already there and won’t be leaving. Instead, it’s that the offices want to move to UMBC which is where they have a larger group of participating people.
And yea it does discriminate, but where are the complaints about not being able to freely voice opinions on matters of state, leaders, etc? What about complaints that women are not allowed in front line combat units, but rather only combat support units? Medical discharges if someone has a disorder or disability that affect their readiness sometimes, etc? Do not just latch onto one point of discrimination as worse than others, especially when being non-hetero can just get you discharged whereas making complaints about the president or secretary of defense can get you court-martialed, discharged, and sentenced to ft. levenworth.
I believe I did mention the inability to speak out against administration leaders as unfair and discriminatory. I find the whole military institution to be unfair….the fact that there is more than one example of discrimination doesn’t excuse each inequity.
Obviously, joining the military is a choice. I’m just saying that having ROTC on campus makes it seem like the university is pushing it , and I think that is wrong, when you take into account all the mental and physical anguish that awaits the soldier, whether deployment is after graduation or not.
And it just seems fishy that it’s been fast tracked
@ Amy
ROTC is already there and not going anywhere. It’s offices being on campus, which would not have a real say in the running of the school, are the only thing under question. Don’t agree with ROTC or military fine, but it is a program already with presence on school (a large one at that compared to many other schools). And when its 23 out of the about 10,000 students, I would say its not being pushed compared to another state school like Virginia Tech where their unit is huge, they live in separate dorms, make it a school recruitment point, etc.
I can’t remember who said it right now, but someone once said the measure of tolerance is tolerating everything, including intolerance. If you have problems with them, don’t associate, it won’t be like your life is that changed by their offices being on umbc instead of jhu. how many pf you protesting these offices were out protesting the department and cadets already on campus before this? how many of you even knew they were here before this? and the university has fast tracked many other programs before too, so if its from the school or even out of the school’s hands, that is nothing new.
Thank you Sarah, your response spoke to a lot of my concerns.
By the way, I wasn’t actually serious about a peace studies department, and I find it humorous that some of you were so quick to jump upon it. I can only imagine that the way you reacted was similar to my own when I first considered a military sciences department. I do not claim to be an expert on the military and hope I did not come across that way. Likewise, I was afraid that this new department might not be experts in what I know, which is academia, and try to interfere or alter the course of our university. Paranoid? Perhaps. I will admit that I am deeply troubled by the thought that we might not actually have a choice whether or not there will be a military presence on our campus. I would agree strongly with the opinion that I would rather see UMBC working to build up departments that it already has. To say that this program is completely free is misleading, there are always costs, yet often costs are justified. I have yet to fully make up my mind.
I just wanted to correct my earlier post about the Town Hall meetings. They are both going to be in the UC BALLROOM, a correction email just went out. Reading the comments here has given me a lot to think about before attending. Thank you.
I had one question about the different types of ROTC. Several of you have mentioned that you were in Air Force ROTC. How is this different from Army ROTC? Are they all basically interchangeable? Does attending one only qualify you for commissions in that division of our Armed Services?
I also wanted to respond to something that JW said, well actually a couple things. First, about your statement that there is nothing more for the GLBT community to “win”. Just following this discussion will prove that is not true. Forsaking the right to speak openly about how you feel about a war to serve your country is not the same thing as not being free to be who you are in order to answer the call of duty if you are so inclined. Living in fear that you may be persecuted for your sexuality or having doors closed to you because of it, is not freedom. Freedom is not some sort of consolation prize which you can “win”. You speak of the men and women who are fighting for our freedom, but you forget to include us among them. You and I are the cornerstones of American freedom, along with our service men and women, and anyone who stands up for what they believe. That is what makes this country great.
It saddens me when I’m told that I’m unpatriotic because I am strongly antiwar, because I think of myself as a patriot. I have a great deal of respect for our soldiers, but I’m not crazy about military dogma, and I’m not afraid to speak up about it. Thank you to those who respect my viewpoint, even if they don’t agree with it, I respect yours and promise to do my best to try to understand it and not dismiss it or make light of it. Thanks for keeping this conversation so civil. Can’t wait to see some of you at the Town Hall meeting!
@ felonious
Army ROTC is for commission in army post grad as an 0-1 (2nd lieutenant) and currently umbc students travel to jhu which is a unit made up of students from umbc, jhu, villa julie, morgan state (i think), and maybe loyola (not sure).
Air Force ROTC is for commission in Air Force post grad also as 0-1/2nd lieutenant and they currently go to college park to participate (only air force host school around here). these cadets do not count towards the 23 being mentioned as those 23 are specific to the army program at hopkins.
there is also Navy ROTC where post grad, selection allows the cadet to be navy officer/01 (ensign) or marine corps officer (01/2nd lieutenant). don’t know of any naval units nearby and no participation from umbc.
They all come out at same rank, but different programs yield different branches. different branches have differing focal point, so army rotc will have army specific courses, like army history or massive troop movement while navy will have its own, like naval history, or shipboard life.
Personally, I don’t really feel like I understand enough about what ROTC would mean for this campus to voice an opinion one way or the other about it. I don’t really like a lot of the Army’s policies (i.e. women in combat, don’t ask, don’t tell, not speaking out against the government, etc), but at the same time I support the idea of serving one’s country, and if other students want to do that by joining up, I don’t have any right to be stopping them from doing so.
Some people here who are not LGBT have been talking about what LGBT people might think about this, but how would you know if you’re straight? Also, we should avoid saying that *all* LGBTs feel one way or the other about ROTC, because they aren’t all a bunch of clones. In fact, they might even disagree with each other.
I also didn’t have a good gut reaction to this, but if we’ve already got so many students involved in ROTC at JHU, it seems like we might as well get ROTC here, especially if the Army will pay for it.
@ Jenny
unless people specifically say that they’re not LGBT or they are straight, then you can’t assume they’re straight. Additionally, its totally possible for straight people to speak on the behalf of the LGBT community if they’re aware, educated on the issues, and have developed the right skills in communication about LGBT issues
Although some people do not agree with the choices or lifestyles of the LGBT community, no one denies them their right to have a presence on-campus.
Parallel, ROTC are a set of people that make choices and lifestyle decisions based on their preferences. Why then should they be denied the opportunity of having college paid for and serving our country, all the while attending UMBC?
‘Don’t ask, don’t tell policy’ allows gay people to serve in the military, and is a progressive move made my military leaders.
LGBT is more discriminating in the sense that it seems only open to members who are L,G,B or T. The military is open to everyone in accordance to their policies.
@ Viva_espain
do you know how ridiculous it is to say that LGBT communities are discriminatory because only people who are LGBT can be included? Thats like saying, black communities are discriminatory because only black people can be involved or judaic societies are discriminatory because only jews can be involved…
LGBT is a condensed acronym. One part of the acronym thats not included is the A which stands for ally. Like a straight person who is an ally to their cause….
ANYONE regardless of their sexual orientation can join Freedom Alliance which is the GLBT organization on campus….on the other hand….ANYONE can join the army, if you abide by their policies which some consider discriminatory.
aka, its ridiculous to say that LGBT organizations as a whole are disciminatory because only people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgendered can join. because I know many people, including myself who are straight, or somewhere in between and are parts of LGBT organizations
You’re not forced to join ROTC, guys. So what’s the big fuss about? Diversity is diversity, and military should be included into that. Anyone who is that against ROTC really isn’t for diversity.
So people are saying we should move it to UMBC, primarily so our students have a better chance at getting scholarships.
So what will happen to the JHU students who are ROTC and have scholarships? I’m assuming they will continue to have theirs until they graduate, but what about incoming JHU students?
JHU is more expensive and harder to get into than UMBC. Frankly, I think it makes sense for them to receive more scholarships.
If you wish to voice your opposition to the creation of an Army ROTC program on the UMBC campus, please click the link below and sign the petition.
Link: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/UMBC/
I have a couple responses to make, which will likely voice my opinion on the matter. Also, I responded to them as I read them, so later replies might not be addressed till, well, later. So keep reading!
@Katie, 7:17 am
You mention how ROTC “provides full scholarships to people…who then have to join the military.” I receive a grant from the state of Maryland that does essentially the same thing–they give me $4000 a year for college, if I teach Spanish for them for four years. Are you saying that this is wrong? I’m under the impression that those who joined ROTC knew that it had a commitment attached to it.
@ anyone who wrote about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
I think that DADT is fantastic. They don’t ask, so it isn’t open discrimination. There are, I imagine, numerous LGTB whatever in the military who are “safe” under this law. If you do “tell” then…okay. Once again, you understood that when you joined. My impression is that DADT was made in part to “protect” the comfort and privacy of all involved–if you were going to be bunking next to someone for an extended period of time, would you feel comfortable knowing they might be interested in you? I’m probably not explaining myself well, so feel free to respond (which you would anyway).
@Anonymous, 7:43 am
I completely agree with you.
@Amy, 8:21 am
My uncle did ROTC, went to college (here at UMBC actually), and eventually became a police officer. He was deployed for the first time last year–at age 37. Seems to me classes aren’t an issue. And the GI bill isn’t necessarily for immediate use.
@Amy 8:56 am
Your experience may be negative but it isn’t representative of everyone’s experience. And you made the choice to marry the military (as much as you can make the choice in who you fall in love with). Seems to me that you can believe whatever (if in the military) but, like with everything else, there is a time and place to discuss it–ie, not in front of commanding officer.
@PDubs, 9:39 am
I agree with you!
@Amy, 10:41 am
I don’t look at it as UMBC pushing ROTC, but rather aiding existing ROTC students. Strictly from that viewpoint, I see no cons. Less traveling (which may equal time for more classes or activities here), better scholarships….
All in all, I don’t mind having ROTC presence here, or establishing a Dept of Military Science. I am concerned about the deadline, but being as I can’t see any real cons…why not?
@Dani Hall
Don’t ask don’t tell (DADT) is a ridiculous initiative. Instead if protecting people in the GLBTQA community it has created a witch hunt for people who associate in the community. If you are even suspected of homosexual conduct you will be dishonorably discharged. How is that protecting GLBTQA in the community?
Also @Viva_espain
Are you serious to even state the GLBTQA community discriminates. How could you even say such an ignorant statement? As an ally I find it to be one the most inclusive communities I have had the privilege to be apart of.
@ Ok….wow
thanks, i was lookin for the word inclusive but I couldn’t think of it. INCLUSIVE
For me the core issue is the current university policy of anti-discrimination, I think it is very important. I value all of the effort UMBC takes to make this policy work in practice not just empty words on paper. It is an important part of our campus culture even if you don’t notice its effects in your day-to-day life. The army does not abide by this policy.
Their representatives on campus will not be abiding by official policies and that seems like a common sense sort of deal breaker. It sounds like their department will be a part of the university officially teaching that it is okay to discriminate (that is if they teach about army policy which I assume they do). If this is given the green light, at least part of UMBC would be officially saying it is okay to discriminate.
The school does not say that individual students can’t be involved with whatever off campus activities they would like, even hate groups if that tickled an individuals fancy. (not that the military is a hate group, just illustrating the issue) It is entirely possible to have 23 or even 1000 students choose to join any given outside group or organization (even controversial things or hate groups). It is even possible to have the university take note of internships or work experience at such places.
It is an entirely different thing for a group with a policy of discrimination to set up a department in our school. That is much more significant than a student organization or even a few classes here and there. It compromises UMBC’s commitment to non-discriminatory practices.
I want an outcome that will serve our community the best in the long term. This department would stay here long after I graduate. What sort of legacy will it create? What will it do for UMBC’s reputation? I don’t want to limit other students access to college, or make their lives harder, but I think in the long run I don’t know if the benefits of this department may outweigh the cost
What sort of compromises have been suggested?
Did anyone make it to the meeting about this today? I had to prepare for a 2:30 exam so I wasn’t able to attend. How did it go? Is there official coverage online anywhere? (this would have been something nice to capture on UMBCtube or the like) Anyone care to write up or link to a recap?
@Ok…wow, 7:20
I can understand that perspective, but at least with DADT–verus flat out asking–GLBT have an opportunity to participate in the military or whatever instead of being refused upfront. That is how I see it as an okay thing.
I apologize if I did not explain my reasoning well enough.
What I am a bit against, however, is the fact that the Department of the Army might be rushing things a little bit. New university departments don’t just magically arise out of the ground.
Disregarding the discrimination issues…
So the program and military studies department would be funded by the ROTC. Wouldn’t it be more efficient for them to just offer more scholarships for students commuting to JHU?
When I first saw the emails about the Town Hall meetings, I thought they were just asking if anyone would be interesting in joining ROTC, which doesn’t interest me in the least, so I deleted them. Then I heard what it was actually about from a collaboration of Facebook and UU, and my first gut feeling was: apathy.
Whether or not ROTC is hosted on this campus or off this campus, it provides the exact same result, it doesn’t affect me. I can’t really speak for anyone else, but I highly doubt it would affect anyone who isn’t going to join the program.
I do agree as some have brought up that this process is a bit rushed and this campus could do to focus on fixing disorder that is already present before adding a new department to the mix. Then again, it is the army, and they might have some insight and advice for getting organized, from what I know they seem pretty good at that sort of thing.
@Meg
Thank you very much for posting those links to the ROTC site, I found that information very insightful. From that website I discovered that there are multiple paths to take in the army from ROTC; I would infer that is dependent on ones major.
Knowing this school I’m sure many participants of the ROTC program at UMBC will end up in Signals, Medical and other Research, Civil Affairs, Intelligence, etc. These assumptions all stem from our prominent Computer Science/Engineering, BioChemistry, IS, Political Science majors and such.
Direct combat is not necessarily the destiny of all cadets.
I would love to hear from ROTC alum or current as to what they are doing or what their plans are, and how they feel about the issue in general.
I’m for the program! That’s all I have to say.
Ulrich,
JHU probably would just use those scholarships for its own students, not UMBC students.
@ sarah:
Thanks for posting that email!! I feel like that alone made more sense than any of the nonsense ppl have posted as comments.
C’mon guys, think about it. These ROTC students are ALREADY at UMBC, all this would be doing would be making their lives a lot easier at no expense to the University! And to whoever said that we shouldn’t be adding departments to the school, I find that a completely unreasonable attitude to have. UMBC needs more students enrolled. With more majors offered, it is more likely that a high school senior would find something they’re interested in and want to come to our school.
I am very liberal but I support the ROTC program. If it’s not right for you don’t major in it. Simple as that.
for those of us commuters, will someone be able to post the gist of the meeting tomorrow afterwards?
I am a cadet currently in the program through Johns Hopkins. I want everyone to know a couple things. We are happy that there is dialog about the ROTC program. It raises awareness about students interested in joining the military after college, whether or not you agree with it being instated here. Keep in mind the military is already a huge influence at UMBC. UMBC receives millions and i mean big money from the DOD (Dept. of Def). for its engineering and science programs and quite frankly I am sick of this talk about the so called “discrimnation policy.” Don’t ask Don’t tell is not there to discriminate against non-heterosexuals it is there TO PROTECT THEM. Talk to people in the military, there ARE GAYS IN THE MILITARY. Not everyone in the military is from a university and is educated. If a Private who barely got his GED found out one of their buddies is a non-heterosexual that could cause MISTRUST based on his perceptions and viewpoints whether right or wrong. And if you do not trust the boys around you in a combat situation. You’re as good as dead, gay or not gay.
On another note ROTC is on nearly every major school campus in the nation. So you”re telling me Brown, Yale, Princeton, MIT, College Park, Loyola, Berkely, Johns Hopkins (just to name a few) all discriminate against the homosexual community by having an ROTC? We’re the only school that loves everybody? Open your eyes. ROTC is a LEADER’S DEVELOPMENT COURSE you will never find a cadet come up to you and give you crap that you are gay. But there are plenty of people who give us crap for being cadets. This is one of the few countries on Earth where you can admit to being gay and not have any lawful repercussions. We fight for that.
And on a final note I am a Muslim American in the United States Army and I love my country. So do not talk to me about discrimination.
“It is the soldier, not the reporter who gives us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet who gives us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer who gives us freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin in draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.”
@ Chelsea
I think the concept of not adding departments was more so to better the departments that are severely underfunded and undersupported departments first, and once thats done, add away, but not to try and better and develop new programs at the same time. It spreads resources too thin.
Second, if this ROTC department would be like most, then you don’t actually major in “military science” (only a few schools make that a majorable field), but instead they major in another field and also get their ROTC training and commission, but not a degree in it, if that makes sense.
@Graduating
I wasn’t turned off to the program. Like I said, I’ve got a lot of family in the military, and based on that, I have no desire to do it. Not that I wouldn’t in specific cases, but you know.
And I saw a lot more than my suitemate. I had morning class last semester, so I saw the ROTC people fairly often doing drill and such. I just don’t see why a normal student should care in more than a passing, apathetic way.
If school expansion is bad please explain why UMBC’s nature preserve is being torn down to build office parks? Doesn’t matter who occupies the offices (USGS perhaps?) it’s still expansion.. and expansion is baaaaadddddd (sarcasm)
If you want diversity you must have both sides present. Without both sides you have a single minded agenda with less success.
Do you want diversity without… wait… we can’t have diversity without both sides… So we can’t use diversity and without in the same sentence while trying to achieve diversity.
Sooooo UMBC is in a pickle. Pay the historical “diverse” role and say one thing, do another and hope the conversations are geared in your favor. OR say one thing, do it, and PROVE how diverse the campus is.
It’s you’re shot Gilmore….
I would like to start by reminding everyone that your freedom to attend a college of your choice, major in a subject of your choice and have this discussion is because OUR MILITARY MEMBERS FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOMS!!!!!!
Believe as you will but…….those who are against the presence of the military are the first to cry out when things like September 11th happen. YOU CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS PEOPLE!! Don’t join if you don’t want to but don’t you dare take opportunities from the brave men and women who unselfishly fight for your rights. We accept groups like LGBT because it is their freedom of expression. How could we even debate changing the rules when it comes to the ROTC program?
Christina,
Good point. If ROTC is not accepted, then UMBC’s claims of diversity are mere hypocrisy.
@ Christina
what you really mean is you accept groups like LGBT if they are willing to not express who they are. that’s what DADA is about right? someone said something earlier about trust, trust is something that works both ways, if you can’t trust your comrades with the truth that you are gay, how can you trust them at all, and why should they trust you? looking forward to a day when our military takes its next step towards inclusiveness and embraces the same tenets that its soldiers die to protect.
@anon 8:45 am
The military can’t make individual people accept GLBT people. Even if the military ends DADT, that doesn’t mean that a GLBT soldier is going to be able to trust their comrades with the truth that they are gay. I don’t like DADT. I wish there was a way around it. But right now, with the ignorance of so many people, it isn’t. The military is a subset of America that often contains more conservative people and sometimes less educated (I’m not saying military members are stupid, just that often poor, rural Americans join the military because that is there only option) which makes the military an especially dangerous place for a openly GLBT individual. If soldiers can’t trust or respect each other they CANNOT do their jobs. Sexual orientation shouldn’t be an issue for these soldiers but for some it IS, and you can’t just expect the magic wand of getting rid of DADT to change that. The time will come when openly gay people can be in the military. That time hasn’t come yet. n
I think the reason why the US Army wants to have more ROTC programs is that the US needs to recruit more soldiers. It currently spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined, but the military needs to be still larger. Attracting young people to enter the military when it means likely tours in the middle east requires offering more benefits, such as ROTC scholarships and signing bonuses. This approach is just good marketing, especially when the economy is down for people in the working or middle class.
@ Cadet Akhtar: I respect what the armed forces do for our country; I was in fact interested in the JROTC program at my high school but didn’t join it for reasons detailed below. You bring up a number of good points, some of which I’d love to hear a little more about.
If the DOD is already funding departments here, why is there a need for a military studies dept? Why not simply add a few classes to the existing ones?
So you’re saying all the things military folk go through to build ‘unit cohesion’ can be totally destroyed by the revelation that one person happens to not be heterosexual? The fact that someone is gay does not define the entirety of the rest of their identity, much less their trustworthiness. I’m gay, but I’m also an immigrant, a Christian, an artist, a student, an employee, a son and an uncle. Some of these have next to nothing to do with my sexual orientation.
Also - DADT does not protect GLBT folks in the military, it forces them into the closet. It forces them to watch their every word and every step lest they be hunted down and discharged. I don’t know if you’ve ever had to lie about who you are and what you do to avoid being discriminated against losing a job or losing people you care about, but it fxing sucks. No honest person should be forced to live a lie.
Also @anon: “The time will come when openly gay people can be in the military. That time hasn’t come yet.” It’s not going to come on its own. Women’s suffrage didn’t just happen when it was ready, child labor laws didn’t spontaneously come about, black suffrage didn’t just happen because it was time, the hate crime laws we ahve today weren’t formed out of nothing. People fought (in a demonstrating and legislating way) for them and people sometimes died (in a literal way) for them. Talking about it now might be the beginning of a bigger movement. “The time will come..but not yet” argument can be used as long as one person’s not ready for equality. Why wait?
The DoD provides wads of cash for scientific research. Most of the math and comp sci profs, for example, have worked with the NSA at one time or another and receive funding from them.
Yes please.
It’s reasonable for the military to require that soldiers not engage in homosexual activity while in the military. This is to ensure good order and discipline within the ranks. Many aspects of the military are not all that different from prison, where male rape is a reality. Tolerance of homosexual behavior of any kind is believed to result in the possibility of this sort of problem becoming more widespread than it already is.
Those who serve in the military voluntarily give up a portion of their civil rights in the name of the preservation of the good order and discipline required to operate effectively as a military unit.
Soldiers are myriad: they do not have First-Amendment freedoms, do not have freedom of movement, are forced to deal with a much more harsh martial court, instead of civilian court when facing charges of various offenses, as well as many other issues.
A central tenet of the military is self-sacrifice. Everyone who serves gives up a great deal, homosexuals are required to make what some consider an unreasonable sacrifice, but though the the path is harder, and the sacrifice more painful, the door is nonetheless open.
Male rape is a reality in military units throughout the world, a Canadian unit was disbanded after allegations of hazing which included rape were proven.
It is much easier for the military to keep the lid on this sort of thing when there are no issues of consent to consider.
DADT is, like most things in the military, an imperfect solution to a problem which shouldn’t exist; however, it does serve a purpose, and should be maintained.
Having ROTC is not going to impinge on our freedoms, mostly because it’s OPTIONAL.
@everyone, especially PDubs
Stop saying that ROTC is optional. ROTC is only optional for 90% of this campus. The other 10% of us do not have the option to participate in ROTC because we are not heterosexual.
Unless we live a lie for four years.
I’m not sure about you, but that’s not an option. Not for me.
@ all the people who are complaining about the DADT policy…here is my question for you.
You want people to accept you and your sexual preferences without judgment. However, you are not tolerant of the opinions or beliefs of others. The hypocrisy is not just on the schools part but on the part of all those who are fighting for equal rights UNTIL it no longer benefits their cause.
I would also like to mention that the military does not let men and women shower or train together because of the inherent risks and problems, does homosexuals showering and training together inherent the same set of risks and problems?
@Paula
I can’t join the Engineering Honors Society because I am not an engineering student. Does that mean there shouldn’t be an Engineering Honors Society? I can’t join…..not even if I live a lie.
Thanks Akhtar, well said.
I’ve read through most of what’s here, and while the town hall meetings are over, I think there is still some discussion to be had. If you feel that passionately about this issue, I hope you had the courage to at least attend the meetings.
Having our own ROTC detachment here would be a huge benefit to the cadets and the student body alike. UMBC supports diversity, and what better form of diversity than diversity of thought? This discussion is one of the best things that could possibly have happened to either the ROTC or the LGBT communities. Publicity, expression, and dialogue are all hugely beneficial. The publicity that this issue has brought both communities is invaluable, and proves to the world that UMBC is made up of people who think and believe differently, yet manage to get along (for the most part).
I’d like to highlight an argument that was made during the Town Hall meetings, just because it is so well put together. One speaker remarked on how the different religious groups on this campus all manage to tolorate each other and have civil, intellectual dialogue between them. As a member of one of those groups, and having sat in and participated in some of those forums, they are quite impressive. Everyone leaves having learned something. There are few organizations more diametrically opposed to one another than the current DADT policy and the LGBT community’s ideals. I think the fact that we could air thos disagreements in a (mostly) civil manner is nothing short of extraordinary.
In the end, the decision will inlcude far more than the personal objections of students. Financial and practical aspects have to be taken into account. UMBC needs money. Plain and simple. We receive millions (example: Chem department just got 4 million in grants for additional research) in funding from the Department of Defense as it is. This really isn’t going to change a whole lot in the grand shceme of things. Students need financial assistance. Not every cadet joins ROTC for the money, but for many is it a very important factor. Currently, preference is given to JHU students for scholarships and financial assistance. Having an ROTC detachment here would give UMBC cadets an equal chance at that scholarship money. It should also be pointed out that the costs of this proposed new department would fall to the US Army, not UMBC.
There is also a question of university government. The Army has not requested a voting seat in the university’s governing system. They want to run their own thing, and stay out of folks’ way. They have requested speaking rights in university government assemblies, but that is only reasonable, I think.
Which brings me to the student aspect of the ROTC question. Currently, students here who wish to participate in ROTC must commute to John’s Hopkins for classes, lab, and some of their physical training. That commute and the time taken off campus means that while every other student is selecting courses based on how they fit around each other, ROTC cadets are desperately trying to squeeze in enough credits to graduate around their demanding commute. Some cadets will not graduate in four years, simply because they could not take the courses they needed here. ROTC coursework does not count toward graduation. It is essentially a minor that cadets recieve no credit for.
I support ROTC on this campus. I think it makes sense. I’m sorry if there are people out there who feel offended by some of the policies related to our military. There are people out there who are offended by your lifestyle. It’s a two-way street. Generic statements of not feeling included or being discriminated against will get you nowhere. I suspect that the establishment of an ROTC detachment on this campus is inevitable. What, specifically, could we do to reduce the tension, fear, anger, whatever that certain communities feel? Comprosmise and accomodation is not out the question. Keep talking, give us some concrete things to work with.
@ Pdubs
While it may be an option for you, one of the big issues that came up at the town hall today is that there are plenty of other people who would like to have that option too. I doubt I can do as much justice to the issue as the person who spoke about it earlier today at the forum. I’ll try to give my best summary of a part of the issue I don’t think you have thought about much yet.
There are plenty of people who would like to have an opportunity to join and serve in the military and enjoy all of the pride and benefits like scholarships others say they gain from participating. All those things that make this so important to the people who want a new ROTC department would not an option for a lot of people who really want to be able to serve their country too. These people are being told they are not allowed to join because they are a part of a group it’s popular to discriminate against.
UMBC is proud to set an example by having a policy many people worked hard to get, saying it is NOT okay to discriminate. This is not about morals or opinion, it is civil rights.
@ many of you
I think a lot of there is an important distinction a lot of people are missing. We are not talking about a club, team, religious group, type of classes or organization this is about a new academic department. So for example regardless of your race anyone is allowed to try to be an engineering major, or take classes there. The engineering honors group is not a university department, it is a club. Can you imagine if we said sure anyone can take the first couple of engineering classes, but if you are a __(anything)___ you can’t continue to junior level classes, or that you can not ever have a job in that field?
I don’t think it is fair to compare students who choose to major in engineering and work hard to attain honors vs. students who want the honor of serving in the military who are not given that choice.
There is a very important process as to how academic departments are founded, it is not something we should give an unfair advantage to ANY potential department espeically one this controversial by letting them circumvent the rules here to protect us from hasty decsions.
@ Christina
hon, please explain how I’m not tolerant of others beliefs and opinions if you don’t fucking know me….
@kate
Thank you very much. I feel as though that was very well phrased.
I attended both town meetings. I was very outspoken.
@Christina
You can not join the Engineering Honor Society because you chose not to be an engineering major. No one at UMBC said that because you are a woman you could not join. No one told you that you could not join because of your race. You were given every opportunity that I was to choose to major in Engineering.
As I said during the town meeting today, this is not a matter of differing viewpoints. This is black and white discrimination against a minority group. The difference here is that Freedom Alliance and campus religious groups and the Society of Black Engineers and the Center for Women and Information Technology and any other school-funded group on this campus that you can think of follow this school’s nondiscrimination policy.
I would love to have a more in-depth forum about DADT, and I would love to hear every viewpoint on this campus about the matter. But like I said, this is not about viewpoints.
This is about discrimination. I hope we can all keep that in mind as we debate this issue further. If the army chose to allow LGBT people to serve openly while retaining an official stance that homosexuality and bisexuality were immoral or ungodly, THEN we would have a case of differing viewpoints.
However, this is not the case.
@ our new SGA president
I was very disappointed by our current president’s stance on this matter.
As a member of the queer community who voted for our new SGA president, I’m wondering what his stance on this issue is.
@ Christina: “You want people to accept you and your sexual preferences without judgment. However, you are not tolerant of the opinions or beliefs of others.” Please provide citations if you are stating factual information. If this is a personal opinion, it should be presented as such.
@ anonymous: That would be a valid argument if everyone in the military was forced to give up the same rights and privileges as everyone else. However, thanks to DADT, gays and lesbian are forced to give up something heterosexuals take for granted: a social life. Try going a week without talking about your significant other at all, or referring to them as ‘my friend;’ try not talking at all about your social group, try listening to other people use your identity as a ‘joke’ and an ‘insult’ and see how soon it starts to wear on you.
I agree with Paula that Jay may have meant well today, but I think he didn’t address this issue well. If I recall correctly he was the one who at the very least suggested this is a moral, or opinion issue. When it is not.
Jay was also among the people who missed the important distinction between a student group or club and a university department.
Was he reading something that was his personal stance, or was that writing he read from a position statement from the SGA?
Technically by being students we are all in the SGA and if that was the most thoughtful way the SGA had to deal with this issue I’m pretty dissapointed in how they represented me. I am glad however that he was there and speaking up whatever his ideas, and I’m pretty sure I saw Steve Gillmore there in the audience too.
I’d also love to hear our new president weigh in.
Jay seemed to be stating a personal standpoint and not an official SGA standpoint. However, he is in a delicate position as the two can be easily confused.
I am disappointed that he is our current president. I am glad his term is coming to an end. I have some very fiery words that I would love to exchange with him that I will hold back, for now.
As a representative of the student body, he should have chosen his words more carefully. I was deeply offended by the way he chose to express his support for the program.
@ Paula
I have lived for 22 years without openly expressing my sexual prferances to those who I do not think should know. What’s 4 more?
Think I have something to hide? I don’t. I just know where the line between open and attention seeking is.
Open with partners, attention seeking in home movies.
btw. I’m straight, but it would be no different if I were gay.
Paula,
I am white and cannot join the Society of Black Engineers, or whatever it’s called. Therefore, they should be kicked off of campus.
@ James G:
In all fairness, there wasn’t a whole lot for you to see, let alone be impressed with, seeing how none of the cadets were on campus for ROTC, except for PT at “2 : darned early” AM.
—————————————–
I am against breaking away from the Hopkins program and starting our own thing because of the training slots JHU receives each year, as a result of its reputation, history and prestige.
This year, two UMBC cadets and a JHU cadet are going to Airborne School at Fort Benning, GA, and another cadet is going to attend Air Assault School this summer. College Park’s cadets only get one Airborne School slot per year, and rarely if ever do they get a slot for Air Assault School.
I am very interested to see how this plays out, and I hope UMBC will eventually rival the Hopkins program in the number of slots we get each year. HOOAH!
PS. I’m gonna miss the Turkey Bowl against Loyola ROTC (we beat them this year! Yeah!)
I can also have a social life without expressing my heterosexuality. It’s not like being straight means I hit on everyone with a XX chromosome.
@ awesome blossom
Actually, it’s assumed that you are heterosexual. You have that privilege. I don’t. And IF you chose to date someone it is natural for it to come up in everyday conversations, even if it’s just via assumed pronouns,
I can’t even go to a doctor’s appointment for a cold without having some nurse try to force me to take a pregnancy test because I’ve stated that I’m sexually active and can’t remember when my last menstrual cycle was.
To say that you have not “come out” to anyone as heterosexual when it is assumed already that you are heterosexual is disrespectful to the struggles of the queer community.
If a lesbian woman gets asked if she has a boyfriend yet, is it “attention seeking” for her to respond, “actually, I have a girlfriend” ? No. It’s not. Because it is assumed that everyone is heterosexual, queer people have the difficult choice to come out on a regular basis and risk rejection, or hide behind the assumption that they are straight and in essence, live a lie of omission.
It’s an individual decision, but it is a complex one. Your comparison is irreverent to the people who have suffered and died because of this dilemma. If we lived in a perfect world, your comparison would hold more validity, but unfortunately, our society is extremely heterosexist.
@Scales of Tyrrany
Any organization that receives UMBC funding can not discriminate against you based on your race. Therefore, if you have a legitimate rejection from ANY UMBC organization based upon the grounds that you are white, I strongly suggest that you sue the school for discrimination.
Until then, I strongly suggest that you shut the fuck up, because I’m pretty sure you’re just another smug kid hiding behind an anonymous name who has not a clue what you’re talking about.
Also, your second post is irrelevant. Being bisexual does not mean that I hit on every human being in existence. I fail to see how that has anything to do with the current discussion.
Come on, let’s keep it civil.
I’d just like to restate, for everyone’s benefit, the different types of UMBC clubs and organizations. These are student organizations that are recognized by the SGA and OSL. There are groups that are selective, for instance, fraternities and sororities, honor societies, acapella groups, etcetera. However, these groups receive no funding. Groups which are non-discriminatory are eligible for funding. For your information NSBE (National Society of Black Engineers) is a funded non-discriminatory group, please get your facts straight.
However, this is all a moot point since what we are talking about is the creation of a new UMBC department. ROTC could create it’s own non-funded UMBC organization very easily if it wanted to (and I believe it already has).
@feloniuscrumb
Thank you. I was about 95% sure that the Society of Black Engineers accepted anyone regardless of race, but I didn’t want to state that concretely since I couldn’t find a reference online.
Paula, not keeping it civil really doesn’t help your argument. While Scales may not be the most tactful person, he does have a point. Having a social life doesn’t really have much to do with whether or not you are gay or straight.
ROTC is not paid for with UMBC money, and therefore should be lumped in with organizations like frats and sororities.
After reading all these posts it’s become clear to me that so many of the supporters of the UMBC ROTC proposal have yet to grasp the main concerns held by many of us who oppose the program.
We do not oppose the program because we secretly want our UMBC ROTC students to be forced to drive across town for classes.
We do not oppose the proposal because we secretly want to deny ROTC students scholarships.
We are opposing this proposal on the PRINCIPLE that every single student at this institution has the right to their dignity and self-worth, including Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender students who so often are denied that right outside of our loop.
Based on this principle, we cannot sit back and allow this institution to support (and that is exactly what is being proposed) ANY organization that happens to have lots of money which comes with the condition that only heterosexuals can participate. It’s degrading. It’s developmentally backwards – we should be encouraging LGBT students to be open and to express their core identity, not requiring them to lock themselves up in closets in order to receive scholarship money. Our institution’s integrity, the antidiscrimination policy, and our HUMAN DIGNITY are not for sale to the highest bidder!
Almost everyone I have spoken to on both sides of this issue does not support the discriminatory, irrational DADT policy. By refusing to participate in this program, we are sending a message to the Army that their policy needs to be changed. We can’t welcome the Army with open arms, provide them with intelligent students, house them in valuable space and at the same time say, “we really oppose what you’re doing”. The ONLY way this backwards policy is going to change is if the Army feels pressure to reverse it.
ROTC is not out lynching gay students.
And it’s not like I express my straightness either all the damn time.
My name is Joseph Zelenak. I am one of the co-vice presidents of the UMBC Freedom Alliance. As a representative of the Freedom Alliance Board, I am posting the board’s official position on the proposal for UMBC becoming a host site for ROTC. I would like to make clear that this is the board’s position, not the position of the entire UMBC Freedom Alliance or all of UMBC’s LGBT community. However, we felt it necessary to speak on behalf of the LGBT community so certain concerns would be understood by the administration and the general UMBC community.
——————————————————————————-
To the UMBC community:
In light of recent discussion concerning the introduction of a fully-sponsored ROTC program to the UMBC campus, including the formation of a Department of Military Sciences, the UMBC Freedom Alliance feels the need to address this issue as a voice for the LGBT community.
We have two major complaints with the proposal. First and foremost, ROTC is a branch of the Armed Forces, and as such it openly discriminates against non-heterosexuals through the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Secondly, the timing of the proposal limits a campus-wide open forum discussion of the proposal necessary to find a conclusion that works for all members of the community.
UMBC values diversity. According to the University’s non-discrimination policy, “The University of Maryland, Baltimore County does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, ethnic background, ancestry, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran’s status, or religion in admission to and participation in educational programs and activities, or employment practices.” This has provided an inviting environment for members of all cultures and communities. In turn, this atmosphere facilitates the free, critical thinking that is a hallmark of the university and provides its students with a unique outlook for their future, both inside and outside academia.
Since 1994, the Armed Forces of the United States, including affiliate branches, have followed the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” prohibits anyone who “demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts,” from continuing service in the Armed Forces. Despite the supposed confidentiality provided by this policy, the Armed Forces only requires ‘credible’ information - a subjective definition that could be a little as gossip. From its inception in 1993 to 2006, 11,694 servicemen and women have been discharged under this policy, 612 in 2006 alone despite the supposed need for troops in the Middle East. Although no longer a dishonorable discharge, it is categorized along with disability discharges, equating homosexuality to a disease or mental condition, a definition discarded by the American Psychological Association in 1973.
Our concern with introducing a ROTC program to UMBC is that the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” directly infringes on our non-discrimination policy. As an educational program on campus, ROTC would openly violate our non-discrimination policy and UMBC could not prevent ROTC from discharging or investigating members for their actual or perceived sexual orientation. By ignoring ROTC’s violations of our non-discrimination policy, how can we as members of the UMBC community be insured that other programs will not begin discriminatory practices without repercussions?
The timing of this proposal causes concern for us as well. During the next two weeks, faculty, staff and students are extremely involved with finals and preoccupied with finishing the semester. This limits how involved the campus community can become in the decision making process. The rush to make a decision subjugates shared governance and undermines a thorough campus evaluation of this proposal, especially considering that it requires the creation of an entire department and complete re-evaluation of already cramped campus space considerations.
We understand that as an ROTC site the opportunities for grants, scholarships, and research for students directly involved with the program are a great incentive to accepting it into the UMBC community, and that students in the Armed Forces are a part of the UMBC community as well, and are in need of support. However, we feel the negative social and environmental qualities that would accompany the proposed on-campus ROTC program greatly outweigh any benefits it could provide. Therefore, we ask that UMBC either reject outright the offer of becoming a host site, or step up and accept its commitment to diversity and stand behind its own non-discrimination policy by providing matching scholarships and departmental support for UMBC’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and ally community.
In respectful dissent,
The 2008-2009 UMBC Freedom Alliance Executive Board
And by not allowing for the ROTC, you’re being discriminatory as well.
ROTC is here, it is an organization on campus. It is not discriminatory to not want to extend them host-status because of infringement on our non-discrimination policy. The Department of Military Science would be able to deny admittance to its program or discharge an individual from it because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation. No other educational program on campus can do this.
Let’s be clear on this issue - ROTC is not being discriminated against.
In fact, we’re INSISTING that ROTC NOT be treated any differently than any of the other Academic Departments on campus. We’re asking that ROTC be held to the exact same standards as the 50+ other academic departments on campus, that it go through the same process to be recognized as the 50+ other Academic Departments.
That isn’t discrimination, that’s fairness and equality.
To propose that ROTC shouldn’t have to hold itself accountable to the same standards as the rest of the 50+ academic departments, to propose that the ROTC is above the policies and the processes that the rest of the departments on campus is an example placing prefernce to one organizaion over all others. THAT is the definition of disrimination.
Wow, I’ve had a lot of catching up to do on the reading. I must say, I really appreciate how respectful this discussion has been…unlike the one about the rape fliers.
I’m really glad the memo from the Senate was posted. Since the Department of Military Science would have n