Identity deficit

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Charles B. Hall says:

    I don’t know about other “Ivy League” institutions (remember that the term refers to an athletic conference not an academic organization), but Harvard has for quite some time permitted its undergraduates to participate in ROTC through the program at MIT, which is two subway stops away.

  2. Chaim Fisher says:

    Dear Rosenblum really should make up his mind, at least inside the same article:

    First he says Obama is too cosmopolitan: “SEN. BARACK OBAMA is the most cosmopolitan, the most European candidate, ever to run for president of the US.”

    Then he says he’s too isolationist: “Obama would also declare the internal affairs of other states matters of no concern.”

    Well, that does not make sense. If he resonates with other states that are opposed to the Republican party’s newly-created US policy of unprovoked war, then he cannot be someone who does not care about what happens in other states.

    In fact the US people are also quite opposed to the Iraq war, and a huge majority wish it had never happened. Are they also Europeans now?

    But I also want to take issue directly with the “identity” card being played here. I never–never–want to claim there is an “identity” function going on in the US that needs to be represented. The leaders that pushed hard on “identity”, like the Nazis Y”Sh and Al Qaeda and so on, always did it over the dead bodies of other identities.

    If we surrender our pluralism and love for all people, even different ones, even different skin colors, then we don’t surrender to the enemy–in fact we become the enemy!

  3. Leah Cypess says:

    Do you believe that we invaded Afghanistan OR Iraq to bring feminism to Muslim women or because Hussein was spending too much money on the military and not enough on feeding his people? Or that McCain cares about the IRAQI people, and that’s why he doesn’t want to withdraw?

    Since Obama’s position on Iraq is a gradual pullout, obviously defense
    spending will be cut as a result. The whole reason it was enlarged in the first place was so we could fight the war. I don’t know which strategy toward Iraq is best, but that’s because I honestly don’t know exactly what we’re doing there at the moment anyhow, and I have a feeling that nobody else does either.

    Furthermore, it is not true that “Attitudes toward military service are a rough litmus test of pride in the United States and belief in its exceptionalism.” You can obviously be proud of America, believe that the military is necessary, and still not be all rah-rah and hawkish about it. The ban of ROTC is because the Ivy League Campuses made a decision to ban recruiting from ALL organizations that don’t treat homosexuals equally. You might not like that attitude toward homosexuality, or you might think an exception should be made for the military, but that’s the reason for the ban.

  4. Charles B. Hall says:

    Leah,

    Actually, ROTC was not “banned” from Harvard; it left on its own almost 40 years ago in part because not enough students were interested and in part because the faculty decided ROTC courses did not deserve academic credit (which is their right to do). Since then, students have had to enroll in the program at MIT as I mentioned. (Here is a link to the current Harvard President at this past year’s commissioning ceremony: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/by_peter_schwor_1.html) ROTC isn’t allowed *back* because of the ban on gays in the military, but it wasn’t kicked out for that or any other reason.

    I don’t know about other universities. FWIW, very few high schools have ROTC programs.

    BTW, my father of blessed memory was a founding Air Force ROTC graduate. He entered college the same month the Air Force was created in 1947 and graduated as a Second Lieutenant in 1951. He got sent to Europe rather than Korea and was discharged from active duty in 1953 as part of the post-Korean War downsizing.

  5. Joseph says:

    >The ban of ROTC is because the Ivy League Campuses made a decision to ban recruiting from ALL organizations that don’t treat homosexuals equally. You might not like that attitude toward homosexuality, or you might think an exception should be made for the military, but that’s the reason for the ban.<

    I don’t buy that as they welcome professors and speakers who support regimes like Iran where homosexuals are openly strung up.

Pin It on Pinterest