Posted on 01/24/2006 3:38:47 PM PST by StAthanasiustheGreat
Military has no place at universities
by Henry M. Bowles III
January 24, 2006
It was a relief to hear that the normally sedated campus Left bothered to protest the creepy presence of military recruiters at the Martin Luther King Jr. job fair. The recruiters’ presence most certainly was, as the NOWAR activists observed, out of line with King’s pacifism. That the protests were reserved for one particularly distasteful instance of military recruiting highlights just how far apart Northwestern stands from its peer universities on the issue. Most elite universities have significant movements, with both students and faculty involvement, to ban military recruiting from campus altogether, mostly due to the military’s ban on open gays from serving.
The irony is that Northwestern is home to Charles Moskos, chief architect of the 1993 law “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Despite his status as a renowned military sociologist and campus celebrity, Moskos has no qualifications for making policy on sexuality. As a result, his major policy achievement has been a disaster. “Don’t Ask” made the absurd promise to rid the military of the sexuality issue, and though it’s mostly stopped inquiries into service members’ sex lives, it has doubled dismissals for people who dare to be honest about their sexuality.
Moskos himself predicts the policy will be gone within the decade, and dismissed its apparent rationale when he told Lingua Franca in 2000: “Fuck unit cohesion. I don’t care about that.” But he does care about “modesty rights for straights.” He said, “I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay.” Moskos’ one-dimensional understanding of human sexuality assumes stable categories of sexual attraction — as if only a man who identifies as “gay” would lust after another man in the shower. He also assumes such lusting would be a problem, an ahistorical idea indeed, given that the military practically invented gay sex. The Moskos standard would have been grounds for dismissal of the entire Spartan army, and if reports are to be believed, much of the Allied forces during World War II.
Protesting military recruiters on campus, so long as they ban open gays from joining, is admirable. But there’s a more permanent reason to keep the military away from our brightest students. Young males are easily manipulated during the period of their lives when they exist outside the female domain, after the mother and before the wife. They are above all eager to demonstrate masculinity. With its promises of order, fraternity and cohesion, the military taps into this angst. A real tragedy occurs when a young man, susceptible to the military’s appeal and nonetheless intelligent and creative, signs up to become cannon fodder. He’ll probably leave the military alive, but he’ll have been irreversibly molded, less inclined to dissent. Less intelligent people are better equipped for most military positions, and have far less to lose.
Henry M. Bowles III is a Medill senior. He can be reached at
h-bowles@northwestern.edu.
Except all the unconstitutional acts masquerading as law which they pass when they have power. Those "laws" they love.
Thank God I didn't go to Northwestern.
No doubt this is one of the people who protested the "sexual abuses" at Abu Ghraib ~ now that's an instance where "Don't Ask Don't Tell" let perverts into the military.
Conversely, no mention how young men are molded into touchy-feely emasculated wimps at our once pround universities. These so-called educators, cranks really, hate themselves only slightly more than they hate everyone else.
If only our elected officials would cut off their taxpayer dollars. Turnabout is fair play.
Ummmmmmmmmm..........ok, y'all help me out here. I realize this young man must be bright 'cuz he's in a good college 'n' all, and my college degree is nearly 30 years old and such, but...............
.......am I missing something?
Heheh. I couldn't figure that one out either.
I should like to challenge young Mr. Bowles to demonstrate that he is one bit smarter than the stupidest recruit picking up cigarette butts at MCRD.
Here is a fellow who evidently has, for some unimaginable reason, an estimate of his own intellect that is not evidenced by his words, and a view of the military that is so ridden with stereotypes that one must conclude that he has no idea how misinformed he really is. I know of enlisted men - rather a large number of them, actually - who possess more academic qualifications including formal degrees than the ostensibly educated Mr. Bowles has yet attained. I know senior enlisted and officers possessing PhD's.
We don't have "cannon fodder" in the U.S. military. That went out a long time ago when we stopped drafting people like Bowles.
A totally outrageous statement, flying in the face of the evidence of the some more of the most intelligent and capable men who have served in the armed forces that it has been my privilege to know.
I have a measured IQ of 164 and flew for Uncle Sam in SAC. Guess I'm really more of an idiot than I thought after all. The pain........the pain..........
"Less intelligent people are better equipped for most military positions, and have far less to lose."
I take great offense at this statement. I joined the Army after graduating from college (cum laude, no less). I saw it as a great opportunity to do something different and see the world while serving my country. I met some of the smartest (and funniest) people that I have ever known while I was serving.
I am so tired of these dang liberals insulting the military by saying that soldiers had no other options in life but to join because they were either to stupid or poor to do anything better with their lives. It is simply not true.
Could it be the author is jealous of people in the military?
I had the honor of working with a guy who was a Havard Law grad who decided to accept a comission and go into the Navy as a Jag rather than goto madison ave.
Thank you for your service.
Like others in this thread, I am beyond angry at the statement we are discussing.
As a tenured college professor in mechanical engineering, I have proudly and repeated written my strongest recommendations for students who have chosen to pursue rigorous officers training programs.
I can't tell you how offensive I find the statement we are discussing.
There's more I could say about about my college friends who pursued amazingly successful in military careers (when I was an undergraduate student, more than 25 years ago) and where the best of the best from my class (I graduated 3rd in my major, 7th in my college - my betters where Navy ROTC engineers).
My Response, which I sent to the school paper.
Mr. Bowles’ Stupid View of the Military
I am a Northwestern Alumnus, an ROTC graduate, and a commissioned officer in the United States Army.
I will not and cannot engage in a debate with Mr. Bowles concerning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy of the US Armed Forces. That is not my responsibility; it is a directive from both the legislature and executive branches of government. The military does not set policy; rather it follows the guidance and orders of the superior civil authorities. This arrangement of civil and military authority has preserved our Republic for over two hundred years; I see no reason to change it.
I take particular offense to Mr. Bowles contention about the make-up of the Armed Forces. Mr. Bowles seems to feel that the role of ‘cannon-fodder’ is reserved for the less-intelligent. One cannot fail to comprehend how Mr. Bowles views society: the intelligent should govern and the less-intelligent should follow orders. While the Republic is preserved by the sacrifice of these “idiots,” the intelligentsia can prosper and enjoy the fruits of the Republic. That is an aristocratic sensibility that is reprehensible in a Republic that seeks to believe that “all men are created equal.” Mr. Bowles would replace that statement with this supposition, “all men are created equal, and the smarter are more equal than the ‘idiots’.”
Mr. Bowles has a second opinion on the Military which is equally unintelligent. Evidently smart people who happen to make the mistake of joining the military do so out of a misplaced sense of masculinity. For Mr. Bowles, all things must surely revolve around sexuality and our sense and security of that. It might surprise Mr. Bowles that I joined the military for two rather different reasons. One, it allowed me to attend Northwestern University and leave with very little debt. Two, I am privileged to serve my country and follow in the footsteps of millions of Americans who put their own lives on hold to serve a higher calling. Mr. Bowles evidently views them as ‘idiots’ too.
Fortunately for him the US Military will continue to defend and protect his right to pass off vapid and dim-witted pieces of garbage as insightful columns. Better Luck Next Time.
"Back door approach"....LoL....funny......
Darn, you beat me to it.
One third of the military are females now. Why do they join?
Although my response is weak in comparison to your service (and that of all others who have served honorably), thank you for you service.
I wish I could adequately explain my outrage to statements like the one we are discussing.
All I can say is that the ranks of officers in the US military are filled with highly intelligent and honorable men. That is my testimony as civilian who has had more than one occasion to make such a judgment.
Thank you.
Remember though, we all play are part in different way and no part is better than the other. They are all essential.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.