Lots of people have already gone after Colman McCarthy for his column insisting that ROTC stay off of our college campuses, despite the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (see here). I want to focus on one small part of his column, the part where he wrote the following:
[From visiting Notre Dame on several occasions] I learned that the ROTC academics were laughably weak. They were softie courses. The many students I interviewed were candid about their reasons for signing up: free tuition and monthly stipends, plus the guarantee of a job in the military after college. With some exceptions, they were mainly from families that couldn't afford ever-rising college tabs.
Never mind that other courses are softie courses. Plus, ROTC students take courses other than ROTC courses, don’t they? (I remember one such student taking one of the advanced math courses I was taking when I was an undergrad.) Finally, McCarthy hasn’t really given any proof that ROTC courses are weak. He just asserts it. His “proof” comes from the motives of students for why they signed up.
And that is what is so curious, for the fact that students from poor families were using ROTC to get a free college education would seem to be an argument in favor of having ROTC on campus, and not against it. That is, it’s an argument in favor if you want to help the poor, which I assume most leftists would want to do.