ROTC gone, but not.

(H/T: SD63)

A few weeks ago, the chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Stout decided an Army ROTC program should be barred from the campus in Menomonie because of the Pentagon's ban against openly gay troops.

This week, Chancellor Charles Sorenson reversed course because he said he wasn't aware last month that his decision apparently violates federal law and a policy of the university's Board of Regents.

It turns out that if Sorenson followed through he would cost UW-Stout around $16 million.

Oops.

But that is not why I bring this up. The thing that caught my eye was this:

Although Republican state legislators assailed Sorenson's decision, he said it "was not intended to be a political statement nor was it meant to comment on ROTC itself, the war in Iraq, or the military. I want to make it clear that we did not yield to external political pressure in changing this position."

Ri-i-i-ight.

I am willing to bet that there are groups on campus just like at the U of MN who allow anyone to be members but some members must hide who they are or be excluded. Do you think for one minute that like me would be allowed to be on the board of the far-left group MPIRG? I'll answer that. No. Men are not allowed to be on the board of fees receiving women's groups. So the exclusions within liberal groups exists both implicitly and explicitly. But when it comes to something militarily related there is a different standard.

Why is that?

One reason...and to help lead you to that answer I will point out that the rash of colleges kicking ROTC off of campus didn't really begin until late 2001 or early 2002 and really picked up in late 2003. Hmm, what happened then.

Thinking. Thinking.

Oh, military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, with all due respect Chancellor Sorenson, your nose is growing as you claim that your attempt to boot ROTC "was not intended to be a political statement nor was it meant to comment on ROTC itself, the war in Iraq, or the military."