Tuesday, April 21, 1998
War and peace at UCLA
HISTORY: The Reserve Officer Training Corps has seen many ups
and downs throughout its 96-year history
as a campus institution
By Pauline Vu
Daily Bruin Contributor
For 96 years, the UCs have trained officers for the U.S.
military in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). And for 96
years, ROTC has been the focus of controversy and debate about the
military’s role.
ROTC’s creation stemmed out of the Civil War, when it became
painfully obvious the Union Army was lacking in officers of
caliber.
The remedy was the Morill Act of 1868, which required all
land-grant institutions to offer military science in their
curricula to provide trained men for the Army and Navy.
In 1920, one year after UCLA’s inception, the Adjutant General
of the Army granted the University of California ROTC branches,
effectively creating an ROTC outfit at UCLA. However, the
university administration made a decision that was to seep ROTC in
controversy for another four decades: It ruled that ROTC’s basic
two-year course would be compulsory for all male students.
That first year, 516 men were enrolled in UCLA’s Army ROTC, the
first branch developed, and enrollment continued to grow. By 1942,
there were 1,236 of the 3,571 men in the entire school were in
ROTC.
With the onslaught of World War II, compulsory ROTC was almost a
blessing, changing from a mere requirement into a valuable asset.
Before WWII, instructors tried to persuade cadets to continue with
their military training beyond the required two years; now students
had to convince instructors they could handle responsibility.
The number of applications to upper division courses exceeded
the positions available. Later, from 1943 to 1946, ROTC was
temporarily discontinued during the war.
When the Korean War arrived, ROTC again experienced popularity.
The United States chose to rely on ROTC to fill its officer
position needs and ROTC again became popular among college males,
as ROTC students were offered deferment from the draft in order to
complete their officer training.
But despite those rare moments when ROTC was extremely popular,
there were many negative times in UCLA’s ROTC tradition: The
spector of compulsory training always loomed over ROTC’s military
victories and popularity.
Since ROTC’s birth, it was the consistent demand of most student
groups in all UC campuses, with the main action taking place at
UCLA and UC Berkeley, that the controversial rule be taken out. In
the 1930s rocks were thrown at ROTC officers and in the 1940s,
there were anti-ROTC demonstrations and thousands signed
petitions.
In March 1950, ROTC gained a slight victory when Students
Against Compulsory ROTC (SACRO) held a publicized debate against
those who favored compulsory ROTC. SACRO member Dave McReynolds
argued that military science courses were not the best way to build
national strength, suggesting economics courses instead, or courses
in ideals of freedom and democracy.
"It is unfair to subject those against military force, because
of religious background, to such a training position," he
argued.
Walter Steward, arguing in favor of compulsory ROTC, replied,
"To be prepared for war is one of the best ways of preserving
peace."
Later that year, students voted on the question, "Do you favor
compulsory ROTC at UCLA?" There were 1,739 "yes" votes and 1,716
"no" votes. Amidst cries that the voting was unfair and that not
enough people had voted, a re-vote was done. This time the margin
was greater, with 2,369 "yes" votes and 2,103 "no" votes.
But the matter was not resolved to the students’ satisfaction.
Nearly a decade later, in 1958, a poll was taken that showed
overwhelming student support for voluntary ROTC training, and in
1960, over 2,500 signatures were collected on a petition at UCLA in
favor of voluntary ROTC. These signatures were collected in just
three days and emissaries were sent to California Governor Edmund
Brown.
Nothing, however, was done about student demands until 1962,
when the Department of Defense told the UC Regents that compulsory
ROTC was no longer necessary for the nation’s defense. A few months
later, the UC Board of Regents met and voted unanimously, with one
abstention, to end 96 years of compulsory ROTC.
Supporters of this decision declared that the quality of men
would be greater, as all cadets would join willingly, which would
also improve the quality of instruction.
However, the results were immediate and negative – the very next
school year enrollment fell from 1,004 to 207. UCLA’s Army ROTC
issued a gloomy statement: "Enrollment in military science has
dropped more than we expected this year."
But compulsory ROTC had died and with it, the main controversy
that had been haunting ROTC.
ROTC’s problems were far from over, however. ROTC members had to
deal with the growing protests against the Vietnam War in the late
1960s.
Former Cadet Bob Lewis, who graduated in 1966, recalls a fond
ROTC memory: "Rushing across campus in full military bearing to a
class in the business school – right through a protest march!"
Another former cadet, Vincent H. Okamoto, who graduated in 1967,
laughed about the time "some UCLA students protested an ROTC
weapons display in the Student Union and the jocks from Frat Row
saved the cadets and assailed the students."
But the situation wasn’t always laughable. ROTC members were a
symbol associated with a hated military, and became targets of
student rage.
May 5, 1970, is a day that stands out in UCLA history. Sparked
by the killing of four protesting Kent State University students by
police, UCLA students held a rally in Meyerhoff Park that rapidly
spun out of control. As the demonstration turned more violent and
students ran wildly in all directions, UCLA was declared in "a
state of emergency" and the LAPD was called in.
One of the first things the students did was march to the ROTC
offices in the Men’s Gym, break the windows and attempt to enter
the offices. They were soon forced out by police. After marching to
Murphy Hall, they ransacked the Air Force ROTC offices in Social
Welfare. There was general confusion as protesters scattered papers
and furniture.
However, the turbulence and protests of the 1970s resulted in a
positive for ROTC: In 1973, women were finally allowed to join.
Previously, any woman who wanted to aid the armed forces in some
way had joined students groups such as "The Scabbard and the
Sword," a women’s organization that assisted the ROTC. Allowing
women in to the ROTC also helped to boost Army ROTC’s flagging
numbers; within two years, women accounted for over 29 percent of
ROTC’s population.
ROTC at UCLA is still changing, and still facing controversy.
One of its greatest challenges and darkest days came three years
ago, when Cadet Huong Nguyen came out as a bisexual in a letter to
her commanding officer, Lt. Colonel Michael Graves.
Graves turned the letter over to his commanding officer and the
case eventually went up to the Secretary of the Army.
In keeping with President Clinton’s "Don’t ask, Don’t tell"
policy, UCLA’s Army ROTC placed Nguyen on leave and revoked her
scholarship while the U.S. military reviewed her case. Meanwhile,
despite Nguyen’s conviction that her predicament was not the fault
of the ROTC, the organization was widely attacked by students,
repudiated by Chancellor Charles Young, and even the Daily Bruin
printed an editorial calling for the end of UCLA’s relationship
with it.
"Nguyen was an outstanding cadet, and it was a great loss to the
Army," said Cadet/First Lieutenant Evan Seamone. "If cadets wanted
to show support to her, they could, and they did."
In 1996 a positive milestone was reached for ROTC: The Army ROTC
hired its first female professor of military science, Colonel Rita
Salley. This move was "in keeping with the army’s interest in
diversity," Salley said.
According to Seamone, ROTC and the military are big promoters of
diversity. Because ROTC still uses affirmative action, it uses its
scholarship money to further its recruiting attempts of
minorities.
"People don’t know what we’re about. We participate in any event
the university participates in. We don’t want people to think
they’re being violated just because we’re here, but we’re UCLA
students. Cadets are students also," Seamone says.
To Seamone, a university setting is particularly excellent for
providing officers, so that ROTC could be more representative of
society.
So what is ROTC about? The campus population that gives it only
a sideways, curious glance might say it is about marching and
chanting. The official books will say it’s there to provide
officers. Seamone offers another choice: It is a place where people
achieve missions, take responsibility and become leaders.
The leadership aspect is most important. "You can be a part of
ROTC and not join the army," Seamone said. "Just take classes and
see how effective a leader you can be."
Army ROTC provides 70 percent of all Army officers each year.
Across the country, many universities are offering minors in
leadership, and most often these classes are taught by ROTC
professors.
And, according to Cadet Jesse Camp, ROTC has definitely
succeeded.
"Some things ROTC has given me is confidence and leadership. I’m
not afraid to stand in front of a group of people, tell them what
to do and where to go."
Its history has also proven that for a long time, willingly or
not, ROTC was not just about the military, but was also an integral
part of the college experience.
Photos courtesy of U.S. Army Photography