Review

This is a highly readable and scholarly study of the origins and growth of the Reserve Officers Training Corps on the campuses of American colleges and universities. It is an important contribution to American intellectual history, one that does not focus on the military aspects of ROTC training. Instead, Neiberg's book adds to the new school of military histories which discuss the growing connections between war and society. The author's thesis is simple: ROTC reinforces the American cultural belief that in a democracy military training is best served under civilian control and regulated by civilian values. According to the author, ROTC has fulfilled two very important roles: it has provided the nation's armed forces with large numbers of well-educated officers; and it has filled the ranks of the nation's military with citizen-soldiers. It follows the "Moderate Whig" English tradition allowing for an acceptable level of civilian control of the military through the influence of civilian colleges and universities. The author, whose sympathies clearly lie with the civilian sector, relies heavily on military archives and those of ten different land-grant and other public universities. Some of those examined include Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Kent State, and Rutgers. Noticeably missing are those from the Ivy League and other private colleges.	1
Neiberg divides his work into four periods. The first addresses the roots of the "Moderate Whig" tradition and the evolution of civilian officer education programs before 1950. He covers familiar terrain in his discussions of the "Anti-Standing Military Tradition," Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, and the National Defense Act of 1916. During this period educators were more vigorous in their support of ROTC than the War and Navy Departments. The second phase examines the Cold War years, 1950–1964. During this period ROTC was faced with the military necessity "to recruit large numbers of experts in such diverse fields as public relations, engineering, and financial administration." (p 46). This period represented "one of great continuity" for ROTC. The third phase, 1964–1972 saw the most intense reform of ROTC. Drill and military training was the center of debate as Congress, the military, and higher education each sought to promote its own agenda. Neiberg is at his best in this phase as he fleshes out the problems confronting ROTC from the Tet Offensive in 1968 to the creation of an all-volunteer force. The war in Vietnam did little to weaken the credibility of ROTC, and paradoxically, more men joined ROTC to avoid being drafted. And despite widespread opposition to the war, "Vietnam gave the universities the motive and the opportunity to correct longstanding anomalies presented by the ROTC programs." (p. 123). Ultimately, reform won out over abolition as faculty recommendations were designed "to make ROTC fit into the fabric of their campus community." (p,127). His final phase looks at the years 1972 to 1980, "when no conscription legislation existed to coerce men into military service." ROTC enrollments at first declined due to the all-volunteer force and then picked up with the recruitment of women and minorities, higher pay, and better conditions. Market incentives instead of a "half-coerced patriotism" led the drive for militarism as a profession. The curricular reforms of this period with a greater emphasis "on environment and context" eliminated "much of the memorization, drill, and corps activity" thereby stabilizing ROTC's viability on campus (187). He ends this study with the election of Ronald Reagan and his support for the all-volunteer force that ultimately made ROTC an entrenched part of the American military system.	2
If the book has a weakness it is its inadequate discussion of the forces opposed to ROTC. Brief mention is made of the 1920s–30's Committee on Militarism in Education. Arthur A. Ekirch's The Civilian and the Military offers a more complete explanation of the ideological roots of the pacifist position opposed to military training on campus. Greater discussion should have been devoted to liberal arts faculties which tolerated ROTC, yet expressed grave reservations regarding it. Neiberg also understates the influence of pro-peace campus demonstrations. His select list of public universities does not tell the whole story respecting the war and ROTC. The antiwar movement did have a chilling effect on ROTC, particularly on private campuses. Finally, despite a pleasant style, the author has an annoying habit of repeating his point over and over again: namely, that the goal of educators and administrators "was not to keep the military out of the university but to ensure that the university would continue to exercise influence over the military through the production of officers on terms amenable to civilian educators." This is a book advanced high school students and college history majors should read. I highly recommend it, both for content and analysis. It is well-documented and contains relevant charts to illustrate certain points. It reminds us that "public universities have never wanted to turn the training of military officers exclusively to the military itself" nor has "the military wanted to do the job itself" (p. 203); and presents a compelling argument on behalf of the preservation of democratic values within the context of national security concerns.	3
Amityville Public Schools/Adelphi University Charles F. Howlett

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.