DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971 | "Don't Let Them Scare Us!! Abolish ROTC!!"

Transcribe
Translate

Campus "Unrest" demonstrations and consequences, 1970-1971

"Don't Let Them Scare Us!! Abolish ROTC!!"

DONE LET THEM SCARE US!!
ABOLISH ROTC!!

The most recent attempt to stop the campus-wide anti-ROTC movement is a court injunction prohibiting virtually any effective action against ROTC. Court injunctions are not new--they have been used before. They were used last year at Darmouth against anti-ROTC demonstrations, and last fall at Boston University in an attempt to keep students from protesting against the General Electric recruiter. BOTH TIMES THEY FAILED. Thousands of students demonstrated anyway.

The injunctions are an attempt to scare people and try to keep them from fighting back--threatening on paper what they have had the power to do all along. Mass student support can overcome the injunction and show that the fight to abolish ROTC is still strong. The injunctions are also designed to make people think that everyone basically accepts ROTC and just a few people are "stirring things up." Over 700 people signed the petitions circulated demanding that ROTC be abolished. More than 100 have participated in th demonstrations this week. Are they dupes? Threats can't stop the anti-ROTC movement. Mass student support can abolish it!

The reasons for abolishing ROTC are clear. ROTC trains the officers for the war in Asia and to suppress blacks, workers, and students in this country.

CAN THESE OFFICERS "CIVILIZE" THE ARMY??

In the first place ROTC officers only take orders and don't decide whether or not to invade a country or a village. These decisions are made of them. And how could these officers carry out a "civilized" invasion of Cambodia? Also, there is growing rebellion against the War in the army, but it is coming from GIs. not officers. 

IS ROTC TRAINING A RIGHT?

The administration also says that even though we oppose the War we can't deny a person's "right to be in ROTC". We don't think such a right exists. This boils down to the right to take over Asia and suppress the people at home. These people always say there is a "right" to be in ROTC, but not a right to abolish it. (Witness tho injunction). Rights are not neutral.

There has been a lot of talk on campus the last few days about tactics. The question of abolishing ROTC or opposing the wars in Southeast Asia has become one of "violence" vs. non-violence. This debate has begun to be more important for many people than the issues themselves. We feel that this split in th anti-war movement has been fed by the advocating of terrorism (dynamite, etc) as well as wild accusations by "pacifists". People in the middle have felt the scare and have been given the impression that to militarnantly oppose ROTC is to be for blowing something up . We think the question about tactics is inseparable from the fight itself. We will do what we need to do to win. It is more important that tactics be they "violent" or non-violent be directed against either the government as the ones sending the troops to Asia or against the University as the trainer of officers for the terrorism. These can be made by both pacifists and militants. Those actions, instead of making the issue clearer for all, can enable those responsible (the government and the University) to hide among the people and point an accusing finger at us as great enemies--going ahead unchallenged with their dirty work. This would be a great setback for not only the anti-ROTC fight, but for the anti-war movement in the whole country. As the University and the government try more and more to blame America's problems on us, we must be clearer than ever that they are the ones sending troops and training the officers. With this strategy they can't hide--and our fights against the war and ROTC can be won.

sds

COME SATURDAY
9:00 PENTACREST

Saving...

DONE LET THEM SCARE US!! ABOLISH ROTC!! The most recent attempt to stop the campus-wide anti-ROTC movement is a court injunction prohibiting virtually any effective action against ROTC. Court injunctions are not new--they have been used before. They were used last year at Darmouth against anti-ROTC demonstrations, and last fall at Boston University in an attempt to keep students from protesting against the General Electric recruiter. BOTH TIMES THEY FAILED. Thousands of students demonstrated anyway. The injunctions are an attempt to scare people and try to keep them from fighting back--threatening on paper what they have had the power to do all along. Mass student support can overcome the injunction and show that the fight to abolish ROTC is still strong. The injunctions are also designed to make people think that everyone basically accepts ROTC and just a few people are "stirring things up." Over 700 people signed the petitions circulated demanding that ROTC be abolished. More than 100 have participated in th demonstrations this week. Are they dupes? Threats can't stop the anti-ROTC movement. Mass student support can abolish it! The reasons for abolishing ROTC are clear. ROTC trains the officers for the war in Asia and to suppress blacks, workers, and students in this country. CAN THESE OFFICERS "CIVILIZE" THE ARMY?? In the first place ROTC officers only take orders and don't decide whether or not to invade a country or a village. These decisions are made of them. And how could these officers carry out a "civilized" invasion of Cambodia? Also, there is growing rebellion against the War in the army, but it is coming from GIs. not officers. IS ROTC TRAINING A RIGHT? The administration also says that even though we oppose the War we can't deny a person's "right to be in ROTC". We don't think such a right exists. This boils down to the right to take over Asia and suppress the people at home. These people always say there is a "right" to be in ROTC, but not a right to abolish it. (Witness tho injunction). Rights are not neutral. There has been a lot of talk on campus the last few days about tactics. The question of abolishing ROTC or opposing the wars in Southeast Asia has become one of "violence" vs. non-violence. This debate has begun to be more important for many people than the issues themselves. We feel that this split in th anti-war movement has been fed by the advocating of terrorism (dynamite, etc) as well as wild accusations by "pacifists". People in the middle have felt the scare and have been given the impression that to militarnantly oppose ROTC is to be for blowing something up . We think the question about tactics is inseparable from the fight itself. We will do what we need to do to win. It is more important that tactics be they "violent" or non-violent be directed against either the government as the ones sending the troops to Asia or against the University as the trainer of officers for the terrorism. These can be made by both pacifists and militants. Those actions, instead of making the issue clearer for all, can enable those responsible (the government and the University) to hide among the people and point an accusing finger at us as great enemies--going ahead unchallenged with their dirty work. This would be a great setback for not only the anti-ROTC fight, but for the anti-war movement in the whole country. As the University and the government try more and more to blame America's problems on us, we must be clearer than ever that they are the ones sending troops and training the officers. With this strategy they can't hide--and our fights against the war and ROTC can be won. sds COME SATURDAY 9:00 PENTACREST