Once again the spectre of the ‘ROTC’ issue haunts NIU. This time, it is raised by Scott Stocking. I am grateful to him for having raised the issue, but I disagree entirely with him and feel compelled to respond.

Why is it that all pro-ROTC arguers have a basic inabilitiy to produce good reason to accept their position? They hem and haw about the immorality of homosexuality, resort to name calling (i.e. “the cultural left”, liberals, fags, etc.) and they feel that they must appeal to the utility of ROTC (“trains leaders of the future”).

Mr. Stocking argues that conservative ethics have been around longer than the “cultural left’s” ethics. Is this any reason to accept them?

Slavery has been around for nearly as long as man has, is this any reason to accept its moral directive? Of course not! Is it not possible that we ought to evaluate these ethics and discover what is right and what is wrong with them? It certainly seems that this should be the case.

Blind acceptance, name calling, utility are all unworthy of rational discourse. The name calling is merely a substitution for the lack of sound argument. Blind acceptance is far too dangerous. Appealing to the utility of ROTC is a dead end.

Killing the unemployed would cut the unemployment rate, yet we cannot do this because it is morally (and fortunately, legally) wrong.

OTC is useful to some students, but the discrimination inherent in the U.S. Department of Defense, of which Army ROTC is a part of, is morally wrong.

The questions are more fundamental then all of this nonsense. The questions are: Is it morally right to deny a human being, who is qualified and capable of doing a job, from doing that job on the basis of a single litmus test?

Is it right for a university to condone, participate in, and encourage an organization that denies membership to a protected group (according to NIU’s Human Rights Amendment) on the basis of one litmus test?

The answer to these questions is a resounding no! It is not right and it is morally indefensible because it refuses to account for individual merit and it violates NIU’s constitution.

Tom Elkins

Junior

Philosphy