It is clear, as popular revolutions and domestic rebellions spread, that the Army will need to become bigger and better trained. As Sam Huntington points out: "Instead of small regular forces backed up by a large reserve and mobilization potential, the requirement now is for substantial, ready, professional forces in being." (Samuel Huntington, APSR, 1959, 1154-55). Some basic facts about ROTC underscore these tendencies.

ROTC graduates make up the vast majority of Army junior officers. According to a report of the Army Personnel Research Office (May, 1966): "the largest single source of junior officers in the Army is the Senior Division ROTC Program established on 232 colleges and universities. In fiscal year 1965, 11,400 ROTC graduates received commissions as compared with 2,300 OCS graduates and 522 Us Military Academy graduates. . . . " The percentage is even higher now that it was in 1965--the memorandum to the CEP says that 85% of junior officers come form ROTC programs. But ROTC players another important function as well:

"More than 1100 of these young men (ROTC graduates each year) will become career officers to furnish the hardcore leadership for the future. It is very evident that the present mission of ROTC is the production of officers, not merely to expose students to military training." (Memorandum)

As the New York Times indicates, ROTC graduates now comprise 50% of Army officers, 35% of the Navy's, and 30% of the Air Force officers. (N.Y. Times, 5 Jan., 1969, p. 64). So ROTC not only supplies the vast majority of junior officers for strength in the long run (by supplying career officers).

What all this means is obvious--the Army is totally committed to ROTC and feels it absolutely essential that ROTC be maintained where it is and expand where it can. This is primarily due to the ever increasing need to deploy the Army around the world to protect US interests, but is also in part the result of an ever growing awareness on the part of Americans as to the function of the US military, an awareness that has causes ROTC enrollment to drop

(Professor Hilary Putnam will move the following resolution--which is supported by SDS--at the Faculty meeting.)

That the Faculty of Arts and Sciences recommend to the Governing Boards that:

(1) Air Force, Army, and Navy Reserve Officers Training Corps be denied course credit.

(2)Corporation appointments for Reserve Officers Training Corps instructors be abolished.

(3)The Reserve Officers Training Corps be denied the use of all Harvard Facilities.

(4)Reserve Officers Training Corps training not be recognized by Harvard in any form, including that of an extracurricular activity or of a departmental course.

(5)The Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarships be replace, where there is need, by commensurate Harvard scholarships. 58% at BU and 37% at Harvard (memorandum). The ROTC campaign at Harvard, far from being quixotic, is a very important fight against the policies of the U.S. Government around the world, one that would, if successful, have a real, material effect on the US military: "Let it be understood beyond question that there is at present no acceptable alternate source of junior officer leadership if ROTC is driven from the college campus" (memorandum). And it is only in this context that the CEP resolution and the response by the Administration to the Paine Hall "demonstration" make sense.

It has been apparent for quite a while that the Defense Department is willing to make large concessions in order to keep ROTC. Course credit was abolished at BU last spring and at Penn this fall, and in both instances the Pentagon found ways to keep ROTC on those campuses. Dean Glimp in fact told the faculty that the Pentagon was willing to be "flexible" about course credit; that they realized the potential of student unrest and were willing to make concessions to forestall it. In the context of this "flexibility," the SFAC-HUC-HPC resolutions, regardless of intent, would have the objective effect of keeping ROTC here: "In my considered judgment, the withdrawal of academic credit for Army ROTC courses at Harvard would not, of itself, cause the Department of the Army to withdraw the ROTC unit from Harvard" (memorandum).

But far more important in light of this is the CEP resolution. For it urges individual examination of ROTC courses and their strengthening where necessary--precisely what the memorandum from the Army urges them to recommend:

"Better, in my judgment, is an action by the faculty to course a thorough reappraisal of the ROTC curricula, within the framework of flexibility available to each service, that would make the ROTC courses of acceptable quality." (memorandum)

The implications of this are clear. In the face of rising student concern with ROTC, the Army presents a memorandum to the CEP, a memorandum the content of which is kept secret. The day of the faculty meeting, Dean Ford calls a press conference to explain the CEP resolution, before little understood and intentionally so. It was a clear attempt to forestall student displeasure and announce a fait accompli before anything could be done about it. And this is precisely why he reacted so strongly to the prospect of 200 students sitting quietly at the Faculty meeting: a real and honest political exchange was certainly not in the interests of the Dean, given the background of the CEP resolution