Dear fellow VMI Alumni,
I wish to challenge your thinking for a moment. This is going to require that you pretend, to think outside the box, to consider what you believe is impossible.
Pretend for a moment that you are a Republican, but that the majority of your fellow Alumni are Democrats, that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia is controlled by Democrats, that the Governor is a Democrat, and that the Democratic Presidential candidate has scheduled a speech at VMI to discuss foreign policy.
On one hand you are proud he has chosen your Alma Mater, but on the other hand you are worried will others feel that your Alma Mater is associated with the Democratic Party. You decide what has happened is wrong. Why, because you believe your Alma Mater as an institution of the Commonwealth of Virginia should be neutral?
Despite wondering if Foresman is on drugs, not, at least not since he was Cadet, you are incensed by what I have asked you to pretend. Consider the following:
- As an institution of the Commonwealth of Virginia is it proper for VMI to be involved in partisan politics? How would the General Assembly view this?
- How have other public institutions have handled such situations? See how the University of Virginia handled a request from President Obama.
- VMI as a “military” college is closely associated with the Armed Forces of the United States; if viewed by a Republican administration as an arm of the Democratic Party would it continue to receive the support of the Department of Defense?
I understand that VMI does not solicit political candidates to speak at the Institute. I also understand that VMI does what the Commonwealth of Virginia tells it to do—and if encouraged to allow such a speech it does so.
While most VMI graduates are in sympathy with Mr. Romney speaking at VMI; I have to wonder how many would sympathetic with the Democratic, Libertarian, or Green candidate speaking at VMI. Probably there would be little sympathy.
Think about this before you go head over heels with the fact that so and so a candidate for (fill in the blank) is speaking at VMI.
To be a truly educated man (at least according to Herbert Dillard) one must be willing to think critically.
I am honored that Governor Romney wishes to speak at VMI; however, I wonder from the perspective of VMI is this a wise decision.
BTW: If anyone is interested who I am voting for; all I can say it is neither of the two major candidates.
It is a fine decision, IMHO. Cadets deserve exposure to as many viewpoints as possible. Recently, SoS Clinton spoke at the “I”. Even though she is in an official office, she is clearly partisan. Governors from both parties speak there, in their role as CinC. During my cadetship Margaret Thatcher spoke, but we were also REQUIRED to see Allen Ginsburg, the beat poet.
No matter which party they are from or what views they represent they should be treated with respect as visitors. Many years ago I went to see Gen. Wm. Westmorland speak at a college and he indured horrible taunts, assaults with objects thrown from the audience and in the end being drowned out by protesters. That served no ones interest.
As fat as what UVA did, “According to the UVA Communications Office earlier on Friday, “they offered up John Paul Jones Arena, but were told it “was not academic enough” by the Obama for America campaign.”"
Hosting the event closer to campus would have required over 200 classes to be canceled and shut down academic buildings for an entire day during the first week of classes. And they would then have to offer the same venue to Romney. I’m sure if Obama wants to come to VMI he will be welcome. He may face an empty Cameron Hall (unless its a check formation like they did with Ginsberg), but he wouldnot be turned away.
I agree with VMI Warrior – Every May, The President, Vice President, SECDEF use the USMA, USNA, USAFA, USCGA, USMMA for speeches that build support for their policies. Certainly the Chiefs of Staff, Commandants, and Chief of Naval Operations will not, cannot turn them away. A few years ago, Bush the Younger used the US Army War College to give a major speech to support to build support for his foreing policy. I say great for VMI for the invitation – if nothing else its great advertisement.
I think there is tremendous down side for VMI. As state colleges and universities complete for diminishing state funds for education – it is critical to remain neutral.
M L. Soares ’75
As an Alumni of VMI, I have to say that the last time I looked, VMI was still in Virginia and Virginia is still part of the United States. That means that first amendment rights of free speech and freedom to peaceably assemble still apply there. If VMI wants to host a candidate for President, whatever party, for whatever reason, they are allowed to do so. Political correctness in the guise of having to stay “neutral” or to worry about funding or any such other nonsense should never come into play. VMI is a collegiate instituiton whose mission and purpose is to train citizen-soldier Leaders. Having a speaker such as this absolutely adds to their education. When I was a cadet there, we had an Israeli General speak to us in Political Science class. Was that Political and one-sided and non-neutral? No, it was part of our education. The only thing I’m sorry about VMI having Mitt Romney give his speech there, is that I can’t be there to hear it.
I am not begrudging you of your position. What I am saying, that regardless of party, that during a campaign it behooves state institutions to remain neutral. Having politicians and other citizens speak at VMI is an essential part of ones education and over the years I have enjoyed attending many of these speeches, whether it is Jimmy Carter, Helmut Schmidt, Margaret Thatcher, Larry Sabato, or any number of distinguished politicians or citizens.
You are being naive if you believe a state institution can remain neutral during an electoral cycle. I also wonder why you are concerned that VMI’s entire reputation might be sullied by hosting a speech?
“If anyone is interested who I am voting for; all I can say it is neither of the two major candidates.”
While this has no effect on the validity of the issues raised, it does disqualify the author’s onn opinion on the grounds of bad juegement.
It is an interesting question but I must disagree. While UVA decided to remain neutral, there are dozens of other state supported institutions throughout the United States that take no issue with receiving President Obama and letting him speak. Elections have consequences and future officers and citizen soldiers should be exposed to this man to hear how his vision on foreign policy will effect their lives in the not too distant future. Although I totally disagree with her, I was not about to try and argue that awarding Hillary Clinton the Distinguished Diplomat award and letting her speak last April in Cameron Hall was wrong. Did you?
Who cares….really. ok, ok, the admin cares, I get it. Last I checked, it was our (alumni) PRIVILEGE and DUTY to ensure our legacy. We all know the admin is filled with appointees, some deserving, some not. Given their “position,” should we really expect anything other than pandering to this side or that?
VMI should be taking the lead- as we have in so many other places- to show ourselves as the standard for education… host The Elephant, host The Do
nkey, host a fair debate including ALL candidates. (Hold preliminary debates on campus, if necessary, to determine the 3-4 that reach the “final”.)
Heck, TOWNIE, don’t be shy… open a new thread with your endorsement of whoever. Better yet, open a new thread with “who do you support for president? Why?” And let the verbal (written) bullets fly. Or maybe “what is the most important issue in this election? Who do you think answers that issue the best?” We debated these things in a barracks room, why not here? All in favor of a spirited and honest debate amongst our most trusted brethren, say “aye.”
Personally, I think it’s a great idea; the cadets should have the opportunity to see both candidates in person. It would be more interesting if there could be other than a scripted, i.e., sanitized, question and answer session later, with an emphasis being on Gov. (although he prentended not to be during the primaries, he was governor of Massachusetts) Romney’s plans for the use of military force by a country that has almost been bankrupted by 2 wars fought on Chinese credit cards that have just about approached the credit limit. What are his plans for the various services?
I would also hope the cadets would want to know what plans his foreign policy advisors, the neocons who got us into Iraq after losing interest in Afghanistan, have for those who are intending to take commissions upon graduation, now that Israel and Iran (Iraq’s new “best buddy”) are rattling sabres at each other. will he be able to resist their calls for wars to assert aAmerican Hegomony in the Middle East? How about Asia; what can and will we do about the South China Sea? One would hope the cadets are very interested in how much of their blood people who have never worn a uniform are willing to spill.
Pardon me, Hegemony. My spell check isn’t working.
Well, per WaPo Gov Romney just said he would do things differently; but not how he would do them differently. It’s tough to anticipate what he was going to say since he has never held one position for very long. Kinda like the old Tom Lehrer song about Werhner von Braun, “…A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience.”
BRAVO ZULUS FOR THE TOM LEHRER PULL.
These same concerns have been raised on my class email list. I will have to admit that I am mystified by these concerns. Has this country reached the point where mere fact of the nominated candidate of one of the major political parties speaking at a state institution risks some unstated retaliation by the general assembly, DOD or other unspecified agencies. I would point out that one the same day Romney spoke at VMI, the President was speaking at a campaign event at George Mason University. He spoke as a candidate and not as the sitting President. I wonder if their alumni are worried about retaliation from the Governor or General Assembly?
I don’t think VMI or any other military academy should allow itself to be used as political prop. What I find even more shameful is the fact that a political candidate that protested for the Vietnam War but refuse to service would have the audacity to speak before such a fine military audience. The Romney family have a long history of not servicing. He spoke about building up our military to send our sons and daughters off to war but he nor any of his family members ever service. VMI has the right to have any guess speaker it desires but it shouldn’t host campaign events and use our young men and women as political props.
As an Air Force Academy Grad, class of 05′, I personally think Romney speaking at such a place as VMI sends the wrong message to the country. By “wrong message” I mean that the average American interprets Romney speaking there as him being endorsed by that institution and its “military members.” I make this anecdotal assessment based on my experiences as an Air Force Officer where the average Americans I have encountered does not understand what the difference is between an officer and an enlisted individual. Moreover, having attended a Service Academy, I can tell you that very few people understand what it is, and many equate all of the Service Academies as being the same as VMI, Citadel, etc. Since average Americans do not know this difference between federally funded DOD schools and public/private funded schools of VMI and Citadel, the line is clearly blurred in the eyes of the public. So in essence, what you see when Romney speaks at VMI is a room full of cadets in their military garb, and average Americans think that Romney is giving a rousing speech to the troops at this military college. Now of course we can speculate as to how Romney keeps giving speeches there – I assume he has a rich friend that works there or knows a person related to the governing of that institution – but it is clearly a play by Romney’s campaign team to put up this illusion of military support so that he can look strong on foreign policy, when in reality he is merely speaking to a bunch of college kids playing dress up in military outfits. I say college kids in outfits not to offend VMI and Citadel grads, but because we all know that attending those institutions does not guarantee an individual a commission in the US military. So again, not to be cynical, but Romney is merely speaking to a bunch of college kids playing dress up, who were most likely “non-volunteered” to attend as a part of a rent-a-crowd; something all Academy graduates fondly remember from our Cadet days…
“I say college kids in outfits not to offend VMI and Citadel grads, but because we all know that attending those institutions does not guarantee an individual a commission in the US Military”- playing dress up? Really? Young Captain, I would point out that while attending a Federal Academy does guarantee a commission upon completion of minimum requirements, receiving a commission from VMI / The Citadel requires more than “just graduating”. While “mandatory commissioning” is no longer in place, and some cadets attend VMI with no intention of military service, I imagine it’s a smaller proportion than Academy cadets who serve the bare minimum Active time, then get out with their “free” college degree to pursue lucrative private careers. Keep in mind that the Federal Academies were founded to produce a professional, career officer Corps. VMI / The Citadel were founded with the Citizen-Soldier in mind.
Finally, one could make the argument that USAF Cadets are college students playing dress-up as well. I’d even considered going into the Air Force but decided to serve in the military instead…..[I say that not to offend any USAF grads....]
With no military experience in his or his family’s background and with the topic of his next
presidential debate being the international scene, Mitt is posing as a hawk. Using Valley Forge Military Academy kids, VMI Keydets and an aircraft carrier backdrop as props to bolster some sort of evolving “hard line” image is pathetically transparent but the sort of thing one might expect from his “Mitt Wit” handlers. All this lends no currency to a candidate unprepared to approach the realities of a dangerous world. The Institute has been used and the whole scheme is laughable!
As a 22 yr retired Army Warrant Officer I feel that Presidential Candidates should not be allowed
to speak at Military affiliated schools such as VMI when his overall position is to “badmouth” the
current president. His views, positions are HIS own views especially when the statements made
do not present an opportunity for the current president to respond to the same manditory student assembly. Mr. Romney ws making an address to a loaded group,not a group I believe that had a choice to then assembly.
Got no problem with it, myself, as long as the other candidate is afforded the same opportunity.
Brother, I could see that now:
“Fair share… Hope and change… Obamacare… religion of peace… Back when I was smoking weed in Hawaii…”
(Crickets…)
Raises the prestige of VMI. Let’s not be too sensitive. The only people who wring their hands over this stuff are alumni.
Honestly folks, normal people have better things to do than worry about the reputation of the Institute.
Cadets got a very cool experience, and life goes on…
I can think of no more appropriate venue for any prospective or standing Commander and Chief to speak than that of the future leadership for those who must serve and die by the decisions of that person. This is entirely indifferent to that person’s political affiliation, mine, those of Virginia, or those of the Corps…most certainly those of the 1st and 2nd class, many of whom face immediate consequences of the election.
I completely disagree with the decision by VMI. Allowing partisan politics to enter our military institutions and academies is just wrong. It’s been discussed by Samuel Huntington, whose book “The Soldier and the State,” has continued to be used by our Armed Forces as a template for military professionalism. The belief that partisan politics erodes military professionalism has not only been expressed by Huntington, but many past officers and veterans. I believe that the President of the United States, the VP, and the Sec Def should be the only ones authorized to speak at military institutions. Regardless of political parties, I believe they should be allowed. Allowing “candidates” just opens up the opportunity for our military institutions to be utilized for partisan politics which is completely at odds with military professionalism and what military institutions and academies stand for. As a veteran, I love my country and will stand behind any President that is in office. The fact that people believe that its okay to allow “candidates” to spew political rancor at our current President at a military academy, just for political points for your political party is just plain wrong and goes against the professionalism of our military institution.
Why VP? He’s not military, has no constitutional military authority and is a politician. Wouldn’t that be the same as any other elected official (or candidate?)
My take: The Romney appearance was probably facilitated by Virginia’s governor. (Read into “facilitated” whatever you like.) General Peay’s preference, whether for or against, was probably not an issue. The ground rules were carefully negotiated prior to anyone signing on; with the Romney campaign and the major news networks all involved, VMI’s official voice was probably required only to rubber stamp the inevitable. Selection of the Leadership Center as the speech venue put Romney about as far off Post as one could be and still call it “appearing at VMI.” That, in my mind, neutralizes alumni objections on the grounds of compromising the Institute’s integrity. Too bad that attendance was limited to the First Class. Whole-Corps check formation is reserved for speakers deemed relevant to the Institute’s educational mission. Romney’s speech was deemed relevant to the Institute’s leadership training mission (thus, the Leadership Center venue). Too bad that VMI faculty were not allowed to attend (to the best of my knowledge that’s how it went down; if I’m wrong on that point, be not harsh in your remarks). Millions of viewers around the world have seen Romney at VMI, which, once the emotions of partisan rancor fade away, is not a bad thing for VMI and is certainly a good thing in terms of name recognition. Why the heck was Romney making his first foreign policy speech only a month from election day? (Yes, that was a disingenuous question.) Would anything but highly respectful and indubitably positive crowd reaction been tolerated? (If you’re answering Yes, then you’re the one being disingenuous now.) If I’d been one of the First Classmen sitting in that audience — and I say this as a four-year veteran of the Institute — I think I would have been feeling at least a little, and probably a lot, taken advantage of. (Unless it was a check formation that got me out of a troubling exam.) “Set dressing” comes to mind. Netting it all out, I’d like to think that VMI got more out of the deal than Romney did. (Taping him in front of the entire Corps would have avoided that “set dressing” element and probably would have helped his case a whole lot more; maybe I’m not giving General Peay nearly the credit he deserves.) Being co-opted into the role of set dressing might have been a burr under the saddle of a lot of the First Classmen, but then maybe VMI First Classmen are considerably more partisan than my “Old Corps” ever was. Thanks for letting me comment. ~ VMI ’72 and a Lexington resident
Well put, Mr. Kosovic. I too imagine some griped about having to go, but many more were probably pleased. I well remember many such visits that we were required to attend, but I think in the end it’s good for the Corps, for the Institute and hopefully Governor Romney as well.
I’m nigh on 20 years out myself, but when I was there the Corps was pretty partisan. Gulf War 1 got points for Bush 1, and I remember that a poll of cadets regarding LTC Oliver North when he ran for Senate showed 90+% planning to vote for him.
IMHO Given the 47%/47% divide in the polls, and the “won/lost” analyst opinions of the most recent “town hall” Presidential debate — I believe Romney will have a very difficult time recovering from his “televised” (“foreign policy”?) reputation for sending thousands of American Jobs overseas and probably contributing to millions more, plus the importing of “foreign workers” to fill many of the jobs that he hasn’t sent off-shore, plus his reputation for “breaking up/bankrupting” a number of small businesses/corporations in the process.
The 12.5 million (or so) Unemployed Americans are an interest group/voting block that is NOT going to split 50/50. This from a frequently “Unemployed American” who is a self-employed IT Architect/Engineer/Consultant/Contractor — highly-skilled, highly employable/ mobile/ promotable — high-impact “hands-on”, “Make IT Happen” IT Professional (40+years, ex-IBMer). I had a VERY SOLID career/business until the off-shore/H1B, anti-EEO job market (planned)disaster occurred, in sync with the (Bush oversight) 2008 “economic meltdown”/stock market crash.
Raised a Southern Virginia Democrat, I’m now “fed up” with the extremes of both major parties. I wish I had Ross Perot to vote for, to end the “GIANT SUCKING SOUND” of American Jobs going overseas. But Obama appears to be the “lesser of the two weevils”.
A second thought — ANY on-post political appearance, especially in front of Marshall Library, MUST be seen as ENDORSING the post-WW-II economic and foreign policies of Gen. George C. Marshall, which — although decidely NOT “middle-of-the-road” — WORKED, to made America the World Leader we are today. We need another LEADER like him to vote for — although I don’t see one as evident today in America’s political, military, or corporate circles. (not even close) Are we “doomed”? I’m sure many of us have BRs who were LEADERS that we would vote for/work for in that role — Citizen-Soldier-Statesman.