I read an article published in the Technician on Sept. 6 titled “ROTC presence promotes militarization of the university, exploits the poor.” From the title of the article, I assumed that this column was not going to be a particularly positive review of NC State’s ROTC program, and I wasn’t wrong.

The author feels that the ROTC program has an “empty patriotism” they use to attract “inexperienced and often financially disadvantaged recruits.” I assume the author means that recruiters for the ROTC use gimmicks like “Joining ROTC is a wonderful way to serve your country while financing your college education.” Can you believe recruiters would actually say something like that?

She wrote that these students have to “literally sell their lives to the federal government” and that no other scholarship would require that.

She describes how ROTC programs at large universities “exploit” poor and minority students and draw parallels between serving in the military and a modern version of “indentured servitude.”

This is fundamentally untrue.

Indentured servitude was the practice of American aristocrats contracting poor Europeans to work for them in exchange for passage across the Atlantic Ocean, food, housing and freedom dues during their contracted period. The life of indentured servants was harsh. Servants had to do whatever their masters instructed them to do. The consequences for breaking the rules of the contract, like running away or becoming pregnant, were punishable by extending the contract, according to PBS.

Compare that to the military. Service members are fully compensated for their work, receiving payment, healthcare, food and housing in some situations. They do not have to undergo harsh conditions normally, unless they are called upon to serve in an environment of hostile fire or eminent danger. In those cases, service members are compensated with additional payment. Service members also have the same rights as regular Americans and human beings; they are not treated any differently. Lastly, everyone in the military does sign a contract and they are expected to serve the duration, however many years it may be, of that contract. The consequence for violating this contract will result as a discharge from the military, not an extension of service.

Clearly, the term “indentured servant” is not at all applicable to the situation that service members are in, unless one counts the signing of a contract to be the only qualification.

At the end, the author writes, with a holier than thou attitude, that most college students are “unlikely to appreciate the gravity of their circumstances.” 

I feel like this is the most ridiculous assertion the author makes during her argument. There is absolutely no base for this, and the author backs it up with no account of why it is true.

While impassionate and full of genuine sentiment, the author lacks something crucial that would certainly help them understand their argument better: seemingly no tangible ties to the ROTC program, the U.S. military or a comprehension of the mindset so many cadets have that choose to pursue service to the United States.

The author repeatedly talks down to the military, the ROTC, ROTC cadets and basically anyone who believes that this is an upstanding organization.

Since there is virtually no proposed solution to the problem laid out by the author other than a rallying cry to terminate the ROTC, I’ll provide a solution that she, and anyone who feels the same way, will hopefully take to heart.

ROTC cadets have nothing to do with how their program is operated. Neither do their direct commanders. The author fails to recognize that politicians and lawmakers are directly responsible for the leadership of the military and many paramilitary operations in the United States. 

The commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces is the president; the commander in chief of the North Carolina National Guard is the governor. Lawmakers decide when to go to war. Lawmakers decide what appropriations are sent to the military.

The author should write to them, not to students asking them to overthrow a program that so many depend on for financing their education. 

On a more personal note, I do have some bias regarding this topic. My father wore the uniform for 34 years, and during some of those he was both a recruiter for the North Carolina Army National Guard and an assistant Army ROTC instructor at Appalachian State University. My dad didn’t lie to students. He didn’t offer any forms of false patriotism. My father helped students who were academically, mentally and physically fit to pursue a career of service to their fellow Americans.

Yes, my dad sold the U.S. Army and yes, many students chose to enter ROTC because of financial reasons, but it was not because they couldn’t “appreciate the gravity of their circumstances.” It was because, above all else, they wanted to devote their lives to something greater than themselves, with full knowledge that their devotion may cause them to make sacrifices no ordinary American should have to make. I am proud of my father. I am proud of the service members serving my country. And I am proud of those students who are willing to devote their college career, and a large portion of their lives to that same service, for they are stronger and more valiant than I.