Pacifist Realism holds that unless there is radical change in our understanding of, and dependence on, war in our modern technologically-advanced world, there will be wars of ever increasing severity, resulting in our eventual extinction. Pacifism is a conscientious and practical response to this threat. Removing this threat of suffering and extinction does not require that the world become pacifistic, but realistic pacifism can lead the way toward the consideration and adoption of other more accessible methods of establishing peaceful relationships.
Pacifism is the refusal, for reasons of conscience, to participate in war.
The following is a copy of my post on the Times website in response to R.O.T.C. Dilemma:
This article is heavily biased and in some cases badly misinformed. Please go back to some original sources of the period (not other newspaper articles). Most significantly, R.O.T.C. was never “banned” on most campuses in the 60’s. The requirement was that if R.O.T.C. was to give grades and academic credit, it must function under the academic regulations that applied to all the other academic programs of the University. Their alternative was to continue as they had been doing, but not for academic credit. This the military adamantly refused. They are a law unto themselves in higher education, and this is what we must question. My heartfelt concern is insuring educational integrity. Note that one cadet says “I have no personal opinion,” in response to a question about R.O.T.C., and the article’s author confirms that cadets are not free to express an opinion. Do we believe that this accords with the true purpose of a University education and is something we should encourage?
p.s. In my experience the folks I knew well in R.O.T.C. were fine individuals and had “chosen” to enter R.O.T.C. because they needed the scholarship money. Is this a good basis for a volunteer army? And what does it say about the value we place on education in this country?