I want to commend The News for its coverage of the recent successes of the Army Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) program as well as for tackling the issue of the treatment of our veterans on college campuses (“ROTC sees rise in NU members,” Feb. 21). With regards to the ROTC program, I feel I need to clarify two points from the recent story.
ROTC cadets are all volunteers and any student may participate in ROTC for up to two years without incurring a service obligation. Those cadets on the full scholarship do become obligated in their second year, as stated in the article; however, an involuntary call to active duty for leaving the program after that is a very rare occurrence, and usually only happens as a result of willful misconduct on the part of the cadet. In the past seven years, there have been 24 students formally disenrolled from our ROTC program (covering multiple campuses in the area) after passing their obligation point. None were required to serve on active duty as a result.
Each of these cases are thoroughly reviewed and the decision to require involuntary active duty can only be approved at the highest level of government – by the Assistant Secretary of the Army, a civilian official.
More often than not, students who disenroll after the obligation point are required only to repay the amount of their scholarship provided to that point. I think we all would agree that fulfilling a service obligation freely made and/or repaying our tax dollars is consistent with the spirit and intent of the law, and only fair.
While cadets, ROTC students are not deployable to any active theater. If called to duty involuntarily, they are still not necessarily headed to Iraq – they would first complete basic training, then join a unit and then be subject to normal flow of deployment rotations. Again, it is not a punishment, merely fulfilling an obligation freely made.
The second point is that the Military Science Department does not impose restrictions on our students as to how to feel about the war in Iraq. What we do teach cadets is that it is inappropriate as a serving officer to publicly express opinions on official US policy. We serve the American people, as represented by current administration, whoever that might be. The Army has a public affairs office, which is empowered to speak on behalf of the Army in policy matters. Cadets, as students, are free to express any opinions they wish, but not while in uniform or in a context where their feelings could be misinterpreted as speaking “for the Army.”
– Lieutenant Colonel John McClellan is a professor of military science in Northeastern’s ROTC program.
