All hail community discussion
To the Editor:
In his recent column ("The ROTC Question", Jan. 29), Chris Norris-LeBlanc '13 argues that a newly formed university committee to reevaluate Brown's Reserve Officers' Training Corps ban is unnecessary. The essence of Norris-LeBlanc's argument is that the basis of the University's ROTC ban in 1972 remains relevant given the current "socio-political climate" and military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am opposed to ROTC — at Brown or elsewhere — but I don't agree that these are good reasons to carry forward a 40-year-old ban without reconsideration. I ask: when is it worthwhile to reevaluate the decisions of our academic forebears?
I am opposed to ROTC at Brown because I question its academic value. Brown's mission is to give students tools to think critically about the world and to engage with the world effectively. In some ways, exposure to the military may be counter-productive for a university culture that prides itself on free thinking. I don't think all of military culture values execution over ideation, but a strong hierarchical structure is bound to nudge individuals more toward "rank and file" than "pioneer." We want pioneers at Brown.
At the same time, it's too simple to compare Iraq to Vietnam and conclude that there is "no reason why ROTC would be any more welcome" today. The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" shows that our government, including much of the military, is open to reevaluating policy and practice in the armed forces. I think the military would be better off with more Brunonians as it evolves into a more inclusive and receptive organization. Is Brown better off? I don't know, but it seems worth considering.
Norris-LeBlanc ends with a rally charge, "all hail community referenda." But we need discussion to separate a past generation's referendum from gag rule on future change. If students are unwilling to reevaluate old University policies like the ROTC ban, then we're acting with the same dogma from which we hoped to steer away.
Steven Gomez GS
Disputing DPS role in December donut run
To the Editor:
Your article about the naked donut run contained a glaring factual inaccuracy. While we, the runners, were initially disrupted by a security guard, (Department of Public Safety) Officer Louise McLaughlin took our names and addresses. Further, she threatened us with calling the Providence Police.
Tim Peacock '12
A participant in the affected run
Mark Porter, chief of public safety, told The Herald DPS responded to a call about the run but did not have a report on the incident -ed.
