DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-04-29 Daily Iowan Article: ""ROTC--the April 18 incident, the April 29 impression"" Page 3

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-04-29 Daily Iowan Article: ""ROTC--the April 18 incident, the April 29 impression"" Page 3

Prompting: the ‘long hair’ dispute
To the Editor:
On Sat., April 18, Member of The University of Iowa Chapter of the University Conference Participated in the demonstration against ROTC and its affiliated organization, Pershing Rifles. The purpose of the present note is to spell out reasons which impelled NUC members to take action at this time.
	The Pershing Rifles drill meet was the first public function scheduled in the new Recreation Building, A building financed by student fees but whose use will be only marginally controlled by students. 
	The student body was not consulted concerned the building’s use by the Pershing Rifles, but University management apparently found no difficulty is turning over the building for the day to such an organization.
	During the past two weeks, discrimination against a student enrolled in ROTC has come to light. The ground on which this student singled out was the length of his hair.
	He was told that, despite his being enrolled only in the first year ROTC course and thus not contractually obligated to the army, and despite his enrolling in the course out of curiosity rather than with the intent of pursuing his studies to the point of enlistment, nevertheless he would have to cut his hair to complete the course. 
	Some of the Compromise maybe worked out in the case of this student, opening the way for others who would be interested in this course while reluctant to shed their hair, but the dispute brought to the surface incidents that raise serious doubts about the fitness of some of the ROTC staff to remain members of the faculty at out University. 
	During the course of the dispute, one of the ROTC instructors referred to the student involved as “Sam Slut.” This gratuitous slander, apparently intended as a humorous play on the student’s name, was made by an instructor IN CLASS while addressing the students in the class.
	Would students be expected to tolerate such childish behavior from faculty in any other department in the University?
	Another incident, illustrative again of the mentality bred by the military and its ROTC arm, involves the head of the Military Science Department, Colonel Cyrus Shockey.
	During the dispute, while Colonel Shockey was refusing to permit the student to participate in some of the activities of the ROTC class, the student chose to express his disagreement wth the political values expressed by ROTC by remaining seated when the national anthem was played.
	After observing this symbolic gesture, Colonel Shockey informed the student that for such an act he (Colonel Shockey) would have the student expelled from the University if it were in his power to do so.
	This from a member of the faculty at our University! Apparently Colonel Shockey is not much bothered by such notions as academic freedom or even free speech.
ee	For the expressions of political beliefs with the Colonel disagrees in a class in his department, he would deny to a student the right to obtain an education in the state university of the student’s home state. Mind you, no violence was involved, not even any mild obstruction _ just a peaceful, individual protest against a political stance by one brave isolated individual student.
	University management accorded the honor of first use of the STUDENT Recreation Building. The incidents described shove are simply blatant examples of the discrepancy between the values of the military and those factions within the University community allied with it, on the one hand, and the values of a democratic university, on the other. 
	Beyond such example lies what we in the New University Conference feel is a fundamental incompatibility between militarism and freedom. We see the present University (and the society which it serves) in the camp of the former; we hope to move it into the camp of the latter. 
	NUC, dedicated as it is to the establishment of a democratic university, chose to support students who acted Saturday to drive from out campus an organization whose members have expressed contempt for an individual student and for democratic ideals. That battle was won by free students, others will follow 
	Stephen D. Ford
	Assist. Prof., business administration
	For the New University Conference

	The ‘long hair’ resolution
To the Editor:
	I wish to report to the student body that my disagreement with the ROTC department has been settled.
	This disagreement, explained in a previous letter to the DI, was over the fact that, as a long-haired student enrolled in a freshman ROTC program, I was prohibited from wearing a uniform and was therefore threatened with loss of points with would result in a lowering of my grade.
	This in spite of the AAUP’s “Joint Statement on Faculty and Students’ Rights” (a statement, by the way, supported by Boyd and Heffner at a recent Board of Regent’s Meeting) which says that grades should be based on academic performance only.
	In response to this disagreement Col. Shockey has set up a new course in which students need not wear a uniform to meet the lab requirements.
	Because ROTC has acted in a manner more flexible that I had anticipated I am considering taking the sophomore course nest year. I have already met two of the nine hours required for this non-uniform lab course.
	 Asked Col. Shockey if this course would be available to all students (that is, anyone but me), and he replied that they would have to see Dean Stuit about it. I did not quite understand why they have to see Dean Stuit but that probably says something about the relationship between the administration and ROTC.
	I should probably warn you, however, that if you do elect to take the new program you should be prepared to face personal slander, ridicule and intimidation. One example of the sort of ridicule you might expect can be illustrated by the fact that in one advanced ROTC course the instructor referred to me in one class as “Sam Slut.”
	Another example can be seen in the treatment I received when, for personal reasons, I did not stand for the national anthem. I was taken to the Colonel’s office with two seniors, I was ridiculed in front of them and the Colonel the Colonel threatened to throw me out bodily if it happened again. He went so far as to say that if it were within his power I would not be allowed to remain at the university.
	Fortunately for those within long hair and short, the military does not yet have complete control of the campus. (Col. Shockey, I would let you attend classes no matter what the length of your hair of your personal beliefs.)
	Despite the fact that in this particular instance the matter has been settled, I think it nonetheless raises some important it nonetheless raises some imports questions for the members of the student body at this institution. 
	Consideration should be given to the question of proper separation of education and military training, of the rule the administration plays in retaining ROTC and the interest these administrators have in the retention of ROTC. 
	Consideration should be given to the fact that Dean Stuit offered the opinion that any student who showed himself unwilling to alter his appearance (not to mention his mind) to satisfy the requirements of ROTC should be willing to drop the class.
	If ROTC is not educational, then it does not belong on a university campus. If ROTC operates in a manner which negates the efforts of the rest of the university to turn individual into thinking, human persons, then it does not belong in a university curriculum. 
		G. Sam Sloss, A4
		Grimes

DI April 29, 1970 3 (of 4)

Saving...

Prompting: the ‘long hair’ dispute To the Editor: On Sat., April 18, Member of The University of Iowa Chapter of the University Conference Participated in the demonstration against ROTC and its affiliated organization, Pershing Rifles. The purpose of the present note is to spell out reasons which impelled NUC members to take action at this time. The Pershing Rifles drill meet was the first public function scheduled in the new Recreation Building, A building financed by student fees but whose use will be only marginally controlled by students. The student body was not consulted concerned the building’s use by the Pershing Rifles, but University management apparently found no difficulty is turning over the building for the day to such an organization. During the past two weeks, discrimination against a student enrolled in ROTC has come to light. The ground on which this student singled out was the length of his hair. He was told that, despite his being enrolled only in the first year ROTC course and thus not contractually obligated to the army, and despite his enrolling in the course out of curiosity rather than with the intent of pursuing his studies to the point of enlistment, nevertheless he would have to cut his hair to complete the course. Some of the Compromise maybe worked out in the case of this student, opening the way for others who would be interested in this course while reluctant to shed their hair, but the dispute brought to the surface incidents that raise serious doubts about the fitness of some of the ROTC staff to remain members of the faculty at out University. During the course of the dispute, one of the ROTC instructors referred to the student involved as “Sam Slut.” This gratuitous slander, apparently intended as a humorous play on the student’s name, was made by an instructor IN CLASS while addressing the students in the class. Would students be expected to tolerate such childish behavior from faculty in any other department in the University? Another incident, illustrative again of the mentality bred by the military and its ROTC arm, involves the head of the Military Science Department, Colonel Cyrus Shockey. During the dispute, while Colonel Shockey was refusing to permit the student to participate in some of the activities of the ROTC class, the student chose to express his disagreement wth the political values expressed by ROTC by remaining seated when the national anthem was played. After observing this symbolic gesture, Colonel Shockey informed the student that for such an act he (Colonel Shockey) would have the student expelled from the University if it were in his power to do so. This from a member of the faculty at our University! Apparently Colonel Shockey is not much bothered by such notions as academic freedom or even free speech. ee For the expressions of political beliefs with the Colonel disagrees in a class in his department, he would deny to a student the right to obtain an education in the state university of the student’s home state. Mind you, no violence was involved, not even any mild obstruction _ just a peaceful, individual protest against a political stance by one brave isolated individual student. University management accorded the honor of first use of the STUDENT Recreation Building. The incidents described shove are simply blatant examples of the discrepancy between the values of the military and those factions within the University community allied with it, on the one hand, and the values of a democratic university, on the other. Beyond such example lies what we in the New University Conference feel is a fundamental incompatibility between militarism and freedom. We see the present University (and the society which it serves) in the camp of the former; we hope to move it into the camp of the latter. NUC, dedicated as it is to the establishment of a democratic university, chose to support students who acted Saturday to drive from out campus an organization whose members have expressed contempt for an individual student and for democratic ideals. That battle was won by free students, others will follow Stephen D. Ford Assist. Prof., business administration For the New University Conference The ‘long hair’ resolution To the Editor: I wish to report to the student body that my disagreement with the ROTC department has been settled. This disagreement, explained in a previous letter to the DI, was over the fact that, as a long-haired student enrolled in a freshman ROTC program, I was prohibited from wearing a uniform and was therefore threatened with loss of points with would result in a lowering of my grade. This in spite of the AAUP’s “Joint Statement on Faculty and Students’ Rights” (a statement, by the way, supported by Boyd and Heffner at a recent Board of Regent’s Meeting) which says that grades should be based on academic performance only. In response to this disagreement Col. Shockey has set up a new course in which students need not wear a uniform to meet the lab requirements. Because ROTC has acted in a manner more flexible that I had anticipated I am considering taking the sophomore course nest year. I have already met two of the nine hours required for this non-uniform lab course. Asked Col. Shockey if this course would be available to all students (that is, anyone but me), and he replied that they would have to see Dean Stuit about it. I did not quite understand why they have to see Dean Stuit but that probably says something about the relationship between the administration and ROTC. I should probably warn you, however, that if you do elect to take the new program you should be prepared to face personal slander, ridicule and intimidation. One example of the sort of ridicule you might expect can be illustrated by the fact that in one advanced ROTC course the instructor referred to me in one class as “Sam Slut.” Another example can be seen in the treatment I received when, for personal reasons, I did not stand for the national anthem. I was taken to the Colonel’s office with two seniors, I was ridiculed in front of them and the Colonel the Colonel threatened to throw me out bodily if it happened again. He went so far as to say that if it were within his power I would not be allowed to remain at the university. Fortunately for those within long hair and short, the military does not yet have complete control of the campus. (Col. Shockey, I would let you attend classes no matter what the length of your hair of your personal beliefs.) Despite the fact that in this particular instance the matter has been settled, I think it nonetheless raises some important it nonetheless raises some imports questions for the members of the student body at this institution. Consideration should be given to the question of proper separation of education and military training, of the rule the administration plays in retaining ROTC and the interest these administrators have in the retention of ROTC. Consideration should be given to the fact that Dean Stuit offered the opinion that any student who showed himself unwilling to alter his appearance (not to mention his mind) to satisfy the requirements of ROTC should be willing to drop the class. If ROTC is not educational, then it does not belong on a university campus. If ROTC operates in a manner which negates the efforts of the rest of the university to turn individual into thinking, human persons, then it does not belong in a university curriculum. G. Sam Sloss, A4 Grimes DI April 29, 1970 3 (of 4)