n Defense of ROTC
To Nick Santos:
I was really offended by your recent article on ROTC in the DFP [“A Disrespectful Eulogy for ROTC”]. Just because you can’t find a job because you won’t “sell out” (a claim almost always proving to be in your own words “bullshit”) does not give you the right to level an attack against members of ROTC on an issue you clearly do not understand.
The reason Major Carver uses arguments that we cannot change the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy, is because we can’t. The military is a very different organization from civilian life. We answer to civilians, not the other way around. Therefore if America has a problem with the policy, they must do it through the channels established by law and the Constitution, which as officers we take a pledge to uphold. Our concern as cadets in ROTC is to prepare to lead soldiers in combat; I know that most people in this community are somehow unaware of that. As leaders of the GSA have admitted that no gay students on this campus wish to join ROTC, we are not actively discriminating against anyone. Therefore, I feel a stronger allegiance to the 40 men’s lives that will be entrusted in my care in combat than a bunch of rich, privileged students who feel upset by an organization they don’t want to join. (Although, in another fact you have wrong, anyone CAN participate in ROTC, they may not however be commissioned if they are openly gay.)
While Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a policy that is certainly on the wrong side of history, it is not something that ROTC cadets can change—we are totally insignificant in the military on any political issue, and it’s not our job. Something you could work on is adopting a tone that would help the cause. Rather than trying to be Bill O’Reilly on the left and make stupid, uninformed rants, you should do some research, talk to people involved in the issue and try to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.
Jason Hartwig ’06
Some Modest Advice
About Last Issue
To the Editors:
I normally enjoy reading the DFP tremendously, but I was a disappointed and surprised that you had an article about “Blitz Etiquette.” I realized you have your arts and entertainment section, but I felt that this article was below your normal standards. It seemed more appropriate for the Mirror. I read your paper because I find it well-written and stimulating. Ms. Van Horn’s article was so trite.
Furthermore, I’m a little upset that you choose to advertise with the “double F’s” picture. That’s so juvenile—you guys are above that.
About the ROTC pieces, I also would’ve like to have heard from some members IN the ROTC about how they reacted to the full scholarship award. Didn’t Welton [Chang ’05] write for you guys? Show him some respect. I understand you don’t like the program, but don’t say the individual students are cowardly for not dissenting as loudly as you’d like. Hear their story first. I think that the military does promote a kind of heavy-handed subjugation, but I feel like many of these guys have more of a back-story than I think you give them credit for.
I’m only writing this because I really like your paper and think that you can do better :O). All and all, I enjoyed this edition.
Best,
Kristen Wong ’06
How To
Get Feminism Right
To the Editors:
I am disappointed that a purportedly progressive newspaper would perpetuate the scathing stereotype of feminism as anti-male. In “The Younger Man” in the January 27, 2006 issue of the DFP, a staff writer makes an assertion about feminist theory that is incorrect. Worse, this false assertion contributes to the already broad camp of people who dismiss feminism using misguided defenses of men.
Feminism encompasses as many theories and interpretations as any other lifestyle philosophy. Its core goals are to promote healthy self-development in women, which relies on a philosophy of interdependence. Women rely on themselves as much as other people in their self-development.
It is not an attack on men. It is a proactive theory in favor of women’s healthy self-development.
Please, hold off on the false descriptions of a field that already suffers from wide misrepresentation. I would like to expect more from a progressive paper.
Thanks,
Elizabeth Gibson ’06
Don’t Fear Change
at Church
To the Editors:
Authority and liturgy (public Church worship) sometimes become vexing issues within the Church. Reading your article on Aquinas House felt like a trip through some of the familiar territory of controversy and discussion we Catholics have visited in recent decades.
As an alumnus and a member of the (rather sourly portrayed) Dominican Order of which Dartmouth’s two new chaplains are members, I would like to make a couple of observations. First, the changes that were made in the liturgy at Aquinas House were all in accord with Church rules, including a rather recent statement from the Vatican that pleaded for more unity and conformity in the liturgy. Certainly different priests are more or less stringent about the rules but it is difficult to condemn one for obeying a directive he feels bound to observe.
Second, it is true that we Dominicans probably have a keener sense of privacy and cloister than our Franciscan predecessors at AQ. But religious orders are supposed to have varied charismas and ways of living. The way of St. Dominic—retreat in prayer that gives birth in ministry—has produced such men as Dominique Pire, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Yves Congar, a leading ecumenist and theologian at the Second Vatican Council, and Thomas Aquinas himself, the greatest of all Catholic theologians, famed for his intellectual dialogue with Jewish, Moslem and pagan thinkers.
Change is difficult but it can be a learning experience for all when endured with love and faith.
Sincerely,
Fr. Francis Belanger, O.P. ’89
St. Thomas Aquinas University Parish
Charlottesville, VA
