To the Editor:
As a West Point dropout and Brown graduate, I spilled my coffee when reading Anne-Caroline Sieffert's letter to the editor ("Expanding education preferable to ROTC," Feb. 8). But the truth is, you don't need a Brown degree, nor much knowledge of the military, to catch the two glaring errors she made.
First, Sieffert argued that Brown needs better scholarships and mentoring. Those are admirable goals, but this is not a debate between offering ROTC to students or increasing need-based aid. Rejecting Reserve Officers' Training Corps will not increase the amount of need-based aid for the poorest. Accepting ROTC will not limit the amount of community outreach and mentoring that the Brown community can provide.
Second, Sieffert expressed concern about kids who are 16 years old joining ROTC. In fact, you have to be 17 years old and have parental permission to receive an ROTC scholarship. Furthermore, most college freshmen are at least 18 — old enough to vote and old enough to be drafted under the law. In my mind, they're also old enough to join ROTC.
While I don't agree that serving in the military is akin to dying as cannon fodder, Sieffert is entitled to her own opinion. But the Brown community is entitled to the facts as they have this very important conversation.
Jon Hillman '09
