The majority of the state universities of the country are Land Grant Colleges -- which means that they have taken advantage of the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 2, 1862 (Ch. 130, 12 U.S. State L. 503), usually called the Morrill Land Grant Act.
This Act provides that funds derived from the sale of certain lands granted by the U.S. government “* * * shall be inviolably appropriated to the endowment, support and maintenance of at least on college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislature of the several states may prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life.”
Under the provisions of this Act, certain studies therein named must be offered by colleges taking advantage of this grant of land from the U. S. Government.
Among these studies is a course in military tactics.
The Act does not make any of the courses compulsory for students, nor have any of them been made compulsory for students by university authorities, with the exception of the course in military tactics.
All of the land grant universities have made the military [page 3] tactics course compulsory, and for many years the opinion has prevailed among faculty members, students and outsiders, that this compulsion was required by the provisions of the Land Grant Act; that the university would lose its income from the grants of land, should it make the course in military tactics optional.
The prevalence of this idea has tended to discourage agitation of the controversial subject, at the various universities.
So firmly [entrenched] was this idea on the campus at Wisconsin State University, that the legislator who introduced the bill to make military drill optional, in the 1923 Session of the Wisconsin Legislature, deemed it advisable to first secure opinion from the Attorney General on the requirements of the Act.
On being asked for an opinion, John W. Weeks, Secretary of War, stated, on November 18, 1924, “The National Defense Act does not make military training compulsory at any of the institutions which receive the benefits authorized by the Act.
So far as the War Departments is concerned, it is optional with the authorities of the school, college or university whether military training shall be an elective or a compulsory course in the curriculum.
However, a certain class of colleges, known as [land grant] institutions must [fulfill] conditions specified in the Act of July 2, 1862, before they can receive the benefits granted by the Act.
The National Defense Act does not change or amend those conditions.”
Campaigns are being waged against compulsory military drill at many of the universities, notably those of Washington, California, Kansas, Nebraska, Georgia, Syracuse University [page 4], Northwestern University, Boston University, Pennsylvania State College, and the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota, founded in 1851, during the period of Indian troubles, made military tactics a part of its curriculum at the beginning and has continued to prescribe compulsion for that particular course.
All freshman and sophomore men students are required to give three hours a week to the course in military tactics, as a prerequisite for graduation.
The only men who may be excused from taking this course are, (1) those who have served in the army, (2) those who have physical disabilities, (3) those who come to the university with an unusual record for athletics and who plan to go in for athletics, (4) those who belong to the Quaker Church. According to the Dean of Student Affairs, many apply but few are excused.
An officer of the regular army is detailed by the War Department to take charge of this course, and becomes a member of the faculty, ranking with the deans.
The United States Government pays the salary of this officer and of his assistants, furnishes all equipment, guns, uniforms, manual of arms, books, etc. The drill hall and drill grounds are supplied by the university.
For years, the compulsory feature of the military tactics course has been the cause of much dissatisfaction, irritation and protestation on the part of men students. [page 5]
In February, 1925, The Minnesota Section of The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom and the following bill introduced in both houses of the Minnesota Legislature:
HOUSE FILE NO. 559
A Bill For An Act To Make Military Training And Discipline At The State University Optional.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota:
Section 1. All schools and colleges of the University of Minnesota in their respective departments and class exercises, shall be open without distinction to students of both sexes, and any able bodied male student therein may, at his option, receive training and discipline in military tactics.
Section 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed.
The bill was defeated in the House by a vote of 70 to 41 and was not [brought] out of committee in the Senate.
Following the failure of this bill, a group of interested students at the University organized The Anti-Compulsory Military Drill League, issues an open letter to the faculty and students, entitled “Our Indictment of Compulsory Drill,” circulated petitions on the campus and offered a prize for the best essay on the subject of optional drill
The League hopes to gather sufficient sentiment to persuade the university authorities to abolish the compulsory feature. [page 6]
Military Training was established at the University of Wisconsin in 1862 as an elective course
In 1886, through action of the Board of Regents, the course was made compulsory, and continued as a compulsory course until 1923, when legislative action restored it to its original status.
Before introducing the measure to eliminate the compulsory feature of the course in military tactics, in the State Legislature, Assemblyman Herman Sachtjen asked the Attorney General for an opinion on the requirements of The Morrill Land Grant Act.
The following decision was rendered by Attorney General Ekern, April 13, 1923:
“It is my opinion that the act of Congress of July 2, 1862, (Ch. 130. 12 U.S. Stat. L. 503), sometimes known as the Morrill Land Grant Act, makes it compulsory that the University of Wisconsin provide facilities for military training. It is my further opinion that the statute in question does not require that military training be compulsory as to the students attending the university.”
On receipt of this opinion, Mr. Sachtjen introduced a bill in the Assembly, amending the statues to read:
Chapter 226, Laws of 1923
An Act to amend Section 36, 15 of the statutes, relating [page 7] to military instruction at the state university.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
Section 1. Section 36.15 of the statues is amended to read: 36.15 All schools and colleges of the university shall, in their respective departments and class exercises, be open without distinction to students of both sexes; and * * * ANY able-bodied male * * * student therein may AT HIS OPTION receive instruction and discipline in military tactics,* * *
Section 2. This act shall take effect upon passage and publication.
The bill passed the Assembly and the Senate, was signed by the governor and became a law June 6, 1923.
After the passage of the bill, the university commandant, O. L. Brunzell, issued letters to all freshmen, sophomore and junior men entering the university, explaining the optional drill plan and urging every student to take advantage of the training offered.
He pointed out the benefits in leadership, discipline and character, placing the issue squarely up to the loyalty of the individual students. Notwithstanding this plea, the attendance in military tactics decreased 26 [percent] in 1923-4.
In 1924-5 there was a slightly greater decrease in attendance.
The entering students now have a choice between physical training or military training or a combination of the two drills. [page 8]
The following statements were made by J. A. Bursley, Dean of Students, at the University of Michigan, September 12, 1925.
The University of Michigan is not a Land Grant University.
Such military training as is given at Michigan has always been optional.
The course in military training is optional by reason of action taken by the university authorities.
No work of this kind was given here, prior to the war.
Last year, our enrollment of men students was between 7,000 and 7,500. Of that number, between 400 and 500 took military drill. They came from all four classes and from various schools and colleges of the university, although the majority of those enrolled were from the College of Engineering.
The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps has been here since the war. Any students who have been members of the R.O.T.C. during the first and second years of their college course may continue this work during the Junior and Senior years, if they so desire.
Since the World War, the War Department has endeavored [page 9] to interest the juniors and seniors of our universities in military affairs, by introducing the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps during the last two years.
This course is optional, with the significant result that a very small [percent] of the men elect to take the advanced training.
Junior and Senior students taking the R.O.T.C. receives $9 a month and uniforms made to order from the government, as special inducements. The cost of the R.O.T.C. unit at the University of Wisconsin exceeds $100,000.00 each year.
The National Defense Act of 1916 was amended in 1920. Section 40 of the Act, concerns the establishment of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps in civil education institutions, and as amended, now reads:
“The president is hereby authorized to establish and maintain in civil educational institutions a Reserve Officers' Training Corps, one or more units in number, which shall consist of a senior division organized at universities granting degrees, including State universities and those State institutions that are required to provide instruction in military tactics under the Act of Congress of July 2, 1862, donating lands for the establishment of colleges where the leading object shall be practical instruction in agriculture and the mechanic arts, including military tactics, and at those essentially military schools not conferring academic degrees, specially designated by the Secretary of War as qualified, and a junior division organized at all other public and private educational institutions, * * * Provided further, That, except at State institutions described in this section, no unit shall be established or maintained in an educational institution until the authorities of the same agree to establish and [page 10] maintain a two year’s elective or compulsory course of military training as a minimum for its physically fit male students, which course, when entered upon by any student, shall as regards such students, be a prerequisite for graduation unless he is relieved of this obligation by regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of War.”
Columbia University has abolished its Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.
There has existed in all of the universities for many years, great dissatisfaction over the compulsory military drill provisions in the curriculum. Without a doubt, the general misunderstanding regarding the source of the compulsory feature, has kept down agitation for optional drill everywhere.
From now on, the university authorities may look for organized opposition to the compulsion, on which, under pressure from the War Department, then arbitrarily insist.
Should the authorities continue to refuse the petitions of the students for any opportunity to exercise the free choice which they employ toward other studies in the curriculum, recourse to the state legislature may be made, following the example of Wisconsin.
It is apparent that the idea of substituting law for war in the settlement of disputes between nations, has gained far more momentum outside of our universities, than it has within the confines of these democratic institutions of higher learning.
Comments