Military

How "Militarized" Is Your College?

From Harvard to Duke to Rutgers to University of Phoenix, here's a ranking of top universities favored by the military-industrial complex.

|

On the heels of revelations that the Pentagon has been paying sports teams to host ostensbily heartfelt and free-to-taxpayers displays of game-time patriotism comes Vice's ranking of the "Most Militarized Universities in America."

The result is pretty fascinating and nuanced and reminds us that colleges and universities, however much they like to consider themselves apart from and superior to the societies they serve, are always deeply enmeshed in politics.

While alarming, this isn't a pat story about how the military is totally warping or infiltrating higher education through some sort or mind control. It's really about how so many different elements of government work their way into all elements of education, including the research agendas at some of the very best schools in the country.

Worries about connections between defense and higher ed aren't new, of course, despite Vice's focus on post-9/11 developments. Observers of higher ed have long looked at how Defense Department contracts underwrote a huge amount of scientific and technology work after World War II (and lest we forget, the first sustained atomic chain reaction, part of the Manhattan Project, famously took place in 1942 under the squash courts at the University of Chicago).

What does the publication mean by militarized?

The term was not meant to simply evoke robust campus police forces or ROTC drills held on a campus quad. It was also a measure of university labs funded by US intelligence agencies, administrators with strong ties to those same agencies, and, most importantly, the educational backgrounds of the approximately 1.4 million people who hold Top Secret clearance in the United States….

Four categories of institutions of higher education dominate the VICE News list of the 100 most militarized universities in America: schools whose students attain their degrees predominantly online; schools that are heavily involved in research and development for defense, intelligence, and security clients; schools in the Washington, DC area; and schools that are newly focused on homeland security….

Vice

Vice summarizes its methodology, which relies on various sources, including a database of workers with top-security clearances:

The rankings were initially calculated based on how many people in the IC had degrees and certificates from each school, then adjusted using 51 additional factors, running the gamut from federal funding amounts to a designation as an Intelligence Community Center of Academic Excellence to participation in federal domestic security task forces.

The affiliations revealed in the resumes of Top Secret workers offer unprecedented insight into the make-up of the national security state. Many of the schools that rank in the top 100 are virtually unknown outside government — schools like Cochise College (No. 6), Excelsior College (No. 13), and Central Texas College (No. 18). Each of these institutions tend to serve a specific constituency: military intelligence at Cochise, Army personnel at Central Texas College, and law enforcement at the predominantly online Excelsior, headquartered in Albany, New York.

Vice notes that "three traditionally conservative schools" (Texas A&M, Brigham Young, and Liberty) are in the top 100, a reminder of all those '60s-era protests at campuses such as Wisconsin and Berkeley against military contracts.

It has been 14 years since 9/11, but many of the national security alliances now in place with higher education institutions have emerged in the past three years. Classified research on campuses, once highly controversial, is making a comeback. College and university administrators and campus police are increasingly being enlisted in homeland security, counter-terrorism, and counter-intelligence.

Read the whole thing and find out if your school makes the list here.

It's helpful, I think, for people to think of this sort of activity in combination with the ways in which Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has been changing the climate on campuses through interpretations of Title IX and related legislation. Indeed, much of the current hysteria over sexual assault at colleges and universities (and especially the erosion of basic due process rights for students) is directly attributable to OCR.

Through a wide-ranging assortment of grants, direct payments, reserach dollars, student loans, and more, the federal government funds much of higher ed and ends up calling all sorts of shots. Understanding all the ways that influences the academy is something worth understanding.

NEXT: The University of Missouri School of Law student government 'social media policy' controversy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Vice notes that “three traditionally conservative schools” (Texas A&M, Brigham Young, and Liberty) are in the top 100, a reminder of all those ’60s-era protests at campuses such as Wisconsin and Berkeley against military contracts.

    Yeah, schools with conservative student bodies have a higher percentage of students who join the military and related fields than schools with liberal student bodies. That is a real scoop there. Who could possibly have guessed that?

    Through a wide-ranging assortment of grants, direct payments, reserach dollars, student loans, and more, the federal government funds much of higher ed and ends up calling all sorts of shots. Understanding all the ways that influences the academy is something worth understanding.

    It certainly is. And given the unbelievable rightward tilt of colleges and universities in this country, it is pretty obvious that it is the military who is calling the shots. /sarc

    1. That actually wasn’t the scoop, in fact they explicitly say that isn’t the scoop. The full quote:

      Only three traditionally conservative schools (as determined by outside rankings), Texas A&M (No. 14), Liberty University (No. 42) and Brigham Young University (No. 84), are in the top 100, indicating that conservative social or political ideology plays little role in how schools are militarized.

      And that’s buried in the article.

      1. Five of the top ten are in Washington DC. The reason for that is every career officer does a tour at the Pentagon and many go to a local school to pick up a masters while there. It is an unbelievably dumb article.

        1. Maybe, but it isn’t some attack on conservatives or conservative schools. The word conservative only shows up once in the article, in the line I just quoted.

          1. I don’t think it was an attack on those schools. It would have to make a point to be an attack.

      2. That actually wasn’t the scoop, in fact they explicitly say that isn’t the scoop. The full quote:

        Only three traditionally conservative schools (as determined by outside rankings), Texas A&M (No. 14), Liberty University (No. 42) and Brigham Young University (No. 84), are in the top 100, indicating that conservative social or political ideology plays little role in how schools are militarized.

        And that’s buried in the article.

        That’s how Vice puts it. In

        1. cut me off…..

          In Nick’s article, the article John’s responding to, it says this–

          Vice notes that “three traditionally conservative schools” (Texas A&M, Brigham Young, and Liberty) are in the top 100, a reminder of all those ’60s-era protests at campuses such as Wisconsin and Berkeley against military contracts

          Nick leaves out the ‘only’ as well as the point that “conservative social or political ideology plays little role in how schools are militarized.”. It is to this that John responds.

          I think Nick’s trying for a job at the NYT with the odiferous levels of derp he’s been spreading lately.

          1. It was unclear to which article John was responding and is no more clear in his responses to me. I’m not going to attempt to read his mind like he does of everyone else.

  2. My alma mater missed the top 25 but is leading the “others receiving votes” category.

    1. +Faber College

  3. I’m trying to figure out why I should care.

    1. Good question. Most of the bitching seems to involve Vice and Nick being pissed off over the voluntary choices of students at particular universities. No one is making the students of Texas A&M join the military at a high rate. So, what the hell business is it of mine, yours or Nick’s that they are?

      1. It’s a weird set of metrics. U of Phoenix is rated a bigger part of the MI complex than Johns Hopkins, which receives $650M a year in DOD research funding.

        1. And Georgia Tech at 26? That makes no sense whatsoever.

          1. I expected to be much higher, but the primary stat seems to be where people with top sevret clearance went to school.

        2. Or Berkley, which as Playa points out below runs several national labs.

          Vice seems to think “militarized” means “a lot of your students either or in or will join the military”, which is a pretty stupid way to look at the term.

          1. It is. In other news, fast food joints are heavily militarized because so many enlisted eat at them.

        3. UoP likely receives far more than 650 mill *indirectly* through educational subsidies for active duty and GI Bill students. If not, it might be cause a far larger percentage of their income comes from the MI.

          UoP, along with University of Maryland, are probably the top two online schools used by servicemembers working towards a degree – mainly because they’ve finagled offices on base.

      2. You should care because the military is totally warping places like Swathmore and Oberlin – where they are more concerned about suppressing speech, white guilt and new genders than actual education. Or something like that.

        1. It is so sad. Some really great people went to those places at one time. Bruce Catton, the great civil war historian went to Oberlin. Now it is a punchline to every SJW joke.

          1. You’re right about Catton. Some of his stuff I kept from my college “Civil War History” class. He’s excellent.

      3. Maybe some people want to know how many people in the Top Secret community are getting their degrees at diploma mills.

        1. Just how good is the U of Phoenix Farsi program?

        2. Pretty much all of them.

          Frankly, in the work that the vast majority of ‘TS holders’ do – 99% of it is on-the-job training anyway. Most of them are already working in their field (often started without any education higher than HS) and are just getting the degree to fill a box on a promotion checklist.

          This is certainly true of AD enlisted – who just need a degree to get promoted, doesn’t matter what its in, and/or want one before the transition over to do mostly the same job for a civilian agency.

          1. And the rest of us are paying for it.

            1. Not necessarily – They would have to break out the GI Bill students, those on their own, those with some sort of Government Job Pays For It, etc.

              That might be more interesting than just “X students with TS clearance”.

      4. Texas A&M has a large Corps of Cadets. They graduate more officers than any university outside the military academies. It’s not about being “conservative.” It’s about hosting a freaking military academy on campus.

        Might as well be surprised that VMI has a lot of ROTC.

        What we learned is that a lot of military types get online degrees or attend college near DC. No shit.

    2. I’m trying to figure out why I should care.

      I’ve figured out that I don’t, and shouldn’t, care.

  4. I was surprised to see Hopkins wasn’t number 1. They certainly are in terms of funding from the military.

  5. Berkeley is not in the top 10, so I know this is bullshit.

    The University of California administrates Lawrence National Lab and a few others, including Livermore. Every single one of my math and science professors had a security clearance and worked there.

    Vice has some interesting reporting, but this is 100% fail.

    1. Caltech isn’t on the list either. Last I looked the Jet Propulsion Laboratory has done a bit of work for the military.

      And of course, all the military money has made Cal Berkley into a hot bed of right wing militarism for decades right? I mean Nick says the military is calling the shots at these places, so Berkley must be like 1930s Germany or something.

    2. LBL isn’t a classified facility, but LLNL sure it.

      They also maintain an affiliation with Los Alamos.

      Wiki:
      On June 1, 2006, the University of California ended its sixty years of direct involvement in operating Los Alamos National Laboratory, and management control of the laboratory was taken over by Los Alamos National Security, LLC with effect October 1, 2007. LLAS is a joint venture of the University of California, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox, URS and Batelle.

      1. There are several classified facilities in the city, including on campus. The place is loaded with contractors.

  6. The Citadel and VMA didn’t make the list?

    1. That is only if you used the classic definition of “militarized” or “militarism” – the example always given is Wilhemine Germany; Military service elevated above other occupations, socially, “Military values” stressed in education, military mode of dress aped, huge percentage of national budgets on the military, etc.

  7. I’m not sure that this is meaningful. The military having universities do research is one thing, I’m not sure it’s a bad thing.

    Where people get degrees is another. Central Texas College for instance was smart enough to cater to the military by putting classrooms on base, offering plenty of on-line classes and streamlining the process for using a GI bill. That’s why many people get a degree there, attending Harvard while in the military isn’t typically an option.

    Neither example seems to mean “militarized” in any sense of how the word is commonly used.

    1. Five of the top ten are in the Washington DC area. It is almost like DOD is headquartered there or something.

    2. I taught CJSC 1348 – Ethics and Criminal Justice at the Bagram AF Ed Center in 2004. Interesting(two classes interrupted by rocket attacks) but I was so exhausted during that time, I would not do it again.

  8. It’s odd to have George Washington University on that list. Our non-navy ROTC folks had to hike over to George Town University for ROTC drills every morning. We didn’t allow an army ROTC group to be created on campus.

  9. While alarming, this isn’t a pat story about how the military is totally warping or infiltrating higher education through some sort or mind control. It’s really about how so many different elements of government work their way into all elements of education, including the research agendas at some of the very best schools in the country.

    What is so alarming about this? This is utter tripe. If a particular research program were brought up for review, then we could discuss the relative merits of that program. The military has enlisted universities for research for decades.

    1. There is nothing alarming about it. Fuck Nick. Seriously, Nick seems to be saying that there is something alarming about a bunch of military guys going to a college. What the fuck does he think is going to happen?

      I don’t quite understand what has happened to Nick. He used to be a bit of an annoying hipster but still wrote some interesting things. Lately, he seems to just put out leftist tripe like this.

      1. And somehow we never hear about stuff like this.

        1. The military is sadly often nothing but a vehicle for each side’s social engineering. The idea that it is some kind of bastion of right wing ideology is just fantasy.

          1. But, but fighter jetz! Blimps! Funny how the social military spending is never questioned.

        2. Ugh. It would make sense for the military to invest in the national grid, as that is an actual security issue.

          The renewables program will just be waste as well as attract corruption and graft.

          1. Actually, it makes no sense whatsoever for the military to invest in the national grid.

            But it does make sense for the military to invest in renewables. Just *not* back here in America, but for use in bases in hostile territories.

            Diesel, for example, can cost over $50 a gallon by the time it reaches troops in the field. At those prices, solar cells and whatnot are *very* competitive. Just absolutely not competitive *here* where diesel is $2.50/gal.

            1. This renewable program is to build solar panel arrays on stateside bases.

            2. It makes no sense to invest in $47/ga biofuels. And unless you want your base to stop operating at night solar doesn’t make a whole lotta sense in the field either. Sure, transporting diesel is a problem but so is energy storage and if you havea significant base, then a small, modular reactor modelled after subs is a much more intelligent path to go down.

      2. Seriously, Nick seems to be saying that there is something alarming about a bunch of military guys going to a college. What the fuck does he think is going to happen?

        Hmm, I dunno, maybe a school that disproportionately serves state agents will change how it operates so it can most efficiently milk the government for tax dollars…no, that could never happen.

        1. Hmm, I dunno, maybe a school that disproportionately serves state agents will change how it operates so it can most efficiently milk the government for tax dollars…no, that could never happen

          Which means what? How, exactly, is this translating to schools becoming “militarized”? In my experience, most military personnel go to college for the exact same reason as anyone else: career development. As has been mentioned, it doesn’t seem like universities are in danger of turning into reactionary Blut und Boden training centers anytime soon.

          1. Which means money out of my pocket.

            1. what money is coming out of your pocket? Military folks working for one branch of govt go to schools often operated by a different branch of govt. Yes, I understand that any govt function is money from someone’s pocket but what is the opposition here?

              1. The money to pay for their fucking college is coming out of my pocket. What do you mean “what is the opposition here”? If colleges realize they can make a bunch of easy money by teaching the military, on the taxpayer dime, that’s more money out of my pocket. That is the opposition.

                1. Military folks, by definition, work for the govt. Does that preclude them from education? And colleges have realized they can make easy money over non-military people, too, by charging whatever they want because they know the loan program will cover it.

                  1. Military folks, by definition, work for the govt.

                    Correct. That’s why they are a problem.

                    Does that preclude them from education?

                    No, but since I already pay their entire salary, maybe they can pay for it out of that.

                    Or, since many of their degrees are unnecessary credentials handed out by diploma mills, they should not be requirements for promotion because all they do is add costs paid by, again, me.

                    And colleges have realized they can make easy money over non-military people, too, by charging whatever they want because they know the loan program will cover it.

                    Well in that case, let’s just continue all spending unabated!

                    And let’s pretend that paying for the educations of members of the military did not precede and set a precedent for paying for the educations of civilians.

                2. Umm, TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. Or so I’ve been told on other matters…

                3. Right. We who worked for the military like to call that “compensation”, and have done so since at least the GI Bill (earlier if you’re one of them officer types).

                  If you have a problem with forced contribution to military compensation, that’s a pretty standard anarchist complaint that I won’t begrudge you. It is, however, different in kind from complaints about supposed “militarization” of society.

  10. Don’t read the comments at Vice. Ugh.

  11. Sort of on-topic, I recall from Generation Kill, the officer was at Harvard but dropped out to join up with the Marines when 9/11 happened (details may be fuzzy).

    He commented on Harvard, which wouldn’t allow ROTC there because they were afraid it would turn their school into a bastion of right-wrong thought, “it would be the opposite-it would liberalize the military”.

    1. There are more liberals in the military than people like Nick think. The military is a huge organization and has all kinds. Moreover, the civilians in the Pentagon are often extremely liberal. The idea that the military is some kind of right wing bastion is just bullshit.

      1. My commie friend from high school (College Democrats in undergrad) went into intelligence/propaganda, now that you mention it.

      2. Who cares if they are liberal or conservative? Neither of those things is libertarian.

        1. Interesting, if I am reading that correctly there seems to be a higher proportion of libertarians in the military than there is in the population as a whole.

          1. I wonder how many are, like myself, disaffected conservatives?

            1. that applies to non-military folks as well.

      3. I would argue that, at least on the Army side, the bearers of the conservative flag would be, largely Field Grade and General Officers and to a smaller degree Senior NCOs (excluding myself). But it is hard to tell, most military members are, wisely, reluctant to bring politics to work, particularly when they are in a leadership position. I agree on the DoD civilians, there are more than a few Obama ’08/’12 bumper stickers on their vehicles.

        1. I can’t speak to the entire organization, but the folks in my career field were EXTREMELY conservative. Can’t think of more than a handful of progressives/liberals/Democrats over a 20 year career.

          But that’s a small subset that, I’m sure, isn’t representative of the entire group.

  12. the military-industrial complex.

    I just have to say this term is triggering to me. It conjures up memories of engaging in political conversations with people from high school and college who also used terms like “wage slavery” and revered Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein.

    1. While I can tolerate reverence for Chomsky, any admiration of Klein reveals a complete and total lack of intelligence. Her supporters aren’t even worth arguing with.

  13. That top 10 reads like a list of every school that attempts to solicit and cater to military students. Hell, there is an “Education Symposium” on post next week and I know at least 6 of those universities will have a rep there because they have offices in the Ed Center.

    1. Pretty much, Cochise college has an agreement with Huachuca that translates NCOES directly into college credits.

  14. Wait, so NOW government research dollars are bad?

  15. Ok, Obama is just about to announce he’s rejecting Keystone XL. Run to your smug shelters until the all clear is given.

  16. And check this out: http://freebeacon.com/politics…..fied-info/

    In a sane world, she’d be fucked politically. Let’s see what happens.

    1. “TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,'” Larry Mrozinski, a former U.S. counterterrorism official, told the New York Post in August. “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious

      Unless your the head of the CIA.

      Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, Clinton’s two top aides, also signed copies of the classified information NDA.

      Mills sent classified information to officials at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2012, an email released by the State Department in September shows.

      Will one of them have to fall on her grenade?

      1. Why would they? If they are prosecuted it will make it more obvious that Clinton broke the law. They’ll all go down together or no one will.

  17. Hate the new web layout. It’s like wired.com’s new clickbait format.

    1. Are you talking about Vice, because Reason’s hasn’t changed as far as I can see.

  18. The result is pretty fascinating and nuanced and reminds us that colleges and universities, however much they like to consider themselves apart from and superior to the societies they serve, are always deeply enmeshed in politics.

    Right. Because there are no other reminders of this. None at all.

  19. Darn. When I saw militarized I thought it was gonna be about the SJW-progs who run amok on campuses.

    Stated otherwise, are these the top 100 universities less likely to have sexual consent forms, trigger warnings and micro-aggression policies?

  20. White House, 2 days ago =

    “We think it would be unusual to suggest that the [7 year Keystone review] process should be shortcut, and we believe that in order to preserve the appearance of independence and fairness and integrity that we should allow the State department review to take its course”

    White House, Today =

    Fuck Y’all Bitches, We’re Taking this Opportunity to Make a Political Statement

    Its like no one even cares about the Continuity of their bullshit-narrative anymore.

  21. As the Hit & Runpublicans continue to claim they aren’t exactly that, let me just point out how much of this conversation is about “wah wah you just hate the military because you think it’s right-wing” as if it shouldn’t be obvious to libertarians that, wow, like, the military is, like, totally a giant tentacle of the state, which, b-t-dubs, we are supposed to be against.

    1. “, the military is, like, totally a giant tentacle of the state, which, b-t-dubs, we are supposed to be against.”

      “We”?

      don’t you claim “anarchist” whenever pressed?

      1. You don’t have to press me, GILMORE.

        1. It was an honest question = don’t you specifically consider yourself an anarchist? (i have some vague memory of you and Epi and some others making this distinction)

          1. Yes, I do. But last time I checked the normal definition of “libertarian” was not “Republican who reads Reason.” I can be fairly described as a libertarian anarchist.

            1. Would you agree that the most widely shared notion of “libertarianism” is a Minarchist concept which specifically does not argue for the total abolition of the state?

              1. Yes, of course. But it also does not argue for excusing all government excesses committed by Republicans.

                1. “”excusing all government excesses committed by Republicans.””

                  When i make that claim, make sure to point it out to me

                  You also keep using this “republican” word, as though Democrats are somehow opposed to any kind of National Security apparatus.

                  FWIW, I’d personally argue at great length that the US can and should cut National Security spending by 50% tomorrow. I doubt either Republicans or Democrats would consider me a welcome member of their respective tribes.

                  What i wont do is whinge about some overlap between University and Miltiary resources as though this is some moral issue that should greatly offend my libertarian sensibilities.

                  Providing for a national security is one of the few vital roles of the state. if there’s some mixing between military needs and academic institutions, big freaking whoop. If there’s an objection to it, it should be on whether people are voluntarily engaged in it or not. If the state were forcing people to serve on their Doomsday Project, maybe i’d bite, but this insistence that all Right Thinking libertarians must be outraged is a bit of a stretch.

                  1. Give me a fucking break. Yeah, suckling at the taxpayer teat is totally not something libertarians are supposed to care about, because it’s…voluntary? I’m not fucking voluntarily engaged in it. The state is forcing people to pay for a bunch of people in the military to get college degrees they only need to advance within a system the state set up.

                    And I’m the one who’s wrong for calling bullshit on that. And I’m wrong for noting that the main defense of the practice in this thread is “you’re just being mean to the military because you don’t like right-wingers.”

                    Right.

                    1. ” I’m the one who’s wrong for calling bullshit on that. And I’m wrong for noting that the main defense of the practice in this thread is “you’re just being mean to the military because you don’t like right-wingers.””

                      Those are your words, not mine.

                      I’m simply responding to your quoted argument above and saying = No, there is no libertarian de-facto objection to “the military being an arm of the state” and therefore “we” are supposed to be instinctively opposed to it in any possible form, notably this one.

                      I think there’s certainly potential objections to be made as to the details of how these things work; but that’s not what’s being claimed.

                      Anything about “right wingers and republicans” is between you and others.

                    2. No, there is no libertarian de-facto objection to “the military being an arm of the state”

                      I never claimed there was one. I said that as an arm of the state, libertarians should be concerned about how the military is spending their money.

                      and therefore “we” are supposed to be instinctively opposed to it in any possible form, notably this one.

                      Again, never claimed libertarians should be opposed to the military. I said they should be questioning public spending.

                    3. “”I never claimed there was one….I said they should be questioning public spending.””

                      “as if it shouldn’t be obvious to libertarians ….the military is, like, totally a giant tentacle of the state, which, b-t-dubs, we are supposed to be against.

                      really? there must be some subtlety there i missed.

                      that didn’t sound like your specific issue was with the prudence of forms of military budgeting….but rather that “libertarians” have an obligation to oppose the existence of the military… and consequently its intermingling with any other institutions like Universities.

                      If that’s the case, i’m still wondering why “we” libertarians should be so particularly upset about the military paying for college for service-members….

                      … instead of things like the F-35, or billions upon billions in waste in other areas. as i already said = its hard to get one’s Libertarian dander up about chickenshit like this when we could probably cut half the defense budget and still crush the planet with our pinky-finger.

                      I’d be perfectly cool with offering service members loans, like Sugar Daddy Govt already does with millions of others. Would that make the situation more libertarian-copacetic?

      2. Ah the ole anarchists aren’t libertarians idiocy again.

        1. Idiocy? it was a yes/no question.

          And if people make these distinctions about themselves – insisting that they are Anarchist *rather than libertarian*…then I presume they would do so because *they* believe there’s a difference, no? Why bother otherwise?

          1. They usually make the distinction between themselves as libertarian anarchists vs. minarchists, constitutional libertarians, conservative libertarians, paleo-libertarians, left-libertarians, etc.

            Our tent is small enough, I don’t see any reason to tighten it further, especially excluding anarchists.

            1. “” I don’t see any reason to tighten it further””

              You mean like constantly accusing everyone of being Republicans because they’re not anarchists?

              1. I’m accusing people of being Republicans because they seem to think the only reason to have a problem with the military is because it’s allegedly full of right-wingers, not because it’s…a fucking ginormous and expensive arm of the state mostly not authorized by the Constitution.

              2. Really? The Republican positions sometimes pushed here are not libertarian under any definition. They certainly aren’t minarchists or even constitutional.

    2. I’m disappointed we’ve only attracted one Cosmo today. They must all still be hungover.

    3. I think the term “militarized” is triggering… *waits for rotten fruit to be thrown*

      Instead of “militarized” how about “taxpayer funded research contractors” or “government dollar swallowers”?

      1. It does seem to be triggering, considering how people have reacted to it. The explanation of Vice’s methodology evidently isn’t enough to deescalate things. I couldn’t care less if people want to say a different term should have been used, though I think Vice’s choice is fair.

        1. I think it sloppy, considering the baggage tied to it…or, rather, it might be deliberate that way.

          As I wrote above, “militarized” or “Militarist” usually invokes some sort of comparison with all the aspects of Wilhemine Germany. Social, dress, education, budget, etc…

          1. But it’s hard to think what other term you might use for a school with a high proportion of its students in the military, if not that. I mean, I totally get what you’re saying, but I think the best you’d do is end up with a phrase like “entangled with the military-industrial complex” or something.

            1. it’s hard to think what other term you might use for a school with a high proportion of its students in the military, if not that

              Those people would be in military service regardless. Short of removing these people from public society and having them hide their military service when outside of a military base, I’m not sure what, exactly, you’re looking for. Frankly, the modern-day US is one of the least militarized societies in the world in any sort of historical context; only some of the modern-day Euro states (which have the US de facto providing their security) are less militarized. It’d be nice if examples of this militarization could be provided, which don’t simply amount to “we see military on campus”.

              1. Short of removing these people from public society and having them hide their military service when outside of a military base, I’m not sure what, exactly, you’re looking for.

                How about this: stop requiring degrees for advancement in the military unless they’re actually necessary, so taxpayers aren’t paying a bunch of diploma mills for credentials people need to get a promotion.

                1. I would be okay with this as well, although, on the enlisted Army side degrees are not technically required for advancement, they are *strongly* recommended. I don’t know how a Associates in General Studies helps a First Sergeant be better at his job, but that’s just me.

            2. “Suckling at the DoD teat”?
              “Government funding dependent”?
              “Hooked on that sweet, sweet cash from the G”?
              “Overly reliant on government contracts”?
              “Catering to TS clearance holders”?

              1. All of those work for me, Swiss.

      2. That would be better and my only contention. All the evidence the article cites seems to imply that the real issue is with the tax payer funded gravy train.

      3. I am still not certain what conclusion we are supposed to draw from this. So with some weighting, these numbers largely reflect colleges that have the highest proportion of military members… OK, got it, now what?

        I think that looking at the amount of R & D money that is given to an intuition is worth more scrutiny.

    4. when did libertarian suddenly morph to meaning opposition to all things of the state? Last I checked, a few folks here held the Constitution in some esteem and it enumerates defense as a power granted to the state. We can argue about the breadth and depth of the state but I didn’t realize we’re supposed to be against its presence, per se.

      1. Well, the only standing military authorized by the Constitution is the Navy.

      2. Certainly should be against its presence in the funding of universities, just like all government funding of universities.

        1. universities have been creatures of the state for a long time. This did not happen with Nick’s getting the vapors over research funding. I even recall this one long-dead guy having something to do with the founding of UVA.

          1. Nothing you said makes government funding of universities a libertarian position. Lots of bullshit has been a creature of the state for a long time.

      3. Libertarianism fundamentally means being against the initiation of force. The state is by definition an institution of force. Part of the force is the act of stealing from Peter to pay Paul. That people tolerate it or people who are libertarian even embrace it to some degree only demonstrates that there are varying degrees of libertarianism.

    5. Libertarians must be against the military is something you made up.

      Even if that were a real thing, no connection here exists. What is the purpose of being against people in the military going to college. Why should I be against that any more than people in the military buying cars?

      1. Because a bunch of them are going to fake colleges to get degrees they only need because the Pentagon requires them for advancement, and taxpayers are paying for it.

  22. “The result is pretty fascinating and nuanced”

    Someone misspelled “Stupid, arbitrary and sensationalist”

  23. Reason is such utter shit on military and foreign affairs issues — sad, since there is a hell of a lot of room and need for an informed libertarian perspective on those issues. This issue is completely irrelevant — our universities are in no danger of becoming some sort of stormtrooper breeding ground. On the other hand, contracting out our services and a variety of practices adopted during the GWOT have been extremely hazardous both to the military and to liberty at large. Much of our foreign policy is ambitious and reckless beyond measure. Our military’s size and peacetime responsibilities have ballooned to unreasonable size and scope. These are all issues worthy of addressing; fears of us becoming a militarized society, on the other hand, are absurd tripe which — at best — are a misguided attempt to sound simpatico with elements of the left for which this is a shared neurosis.

    1. It really is. None of the staff know anything about the subject. So they just print whatever leftist tripe best fits the narrative. I have never read a single interesting or insightful thing about those subjects in Reason in years.

    2. “our universities are in no danger of becoming some sort of stormtrooper breeding ground”

      A Libertarian would argue against government funding of research. Every researcher funded by the tax-payer is a researcher who isn’t funded by the market place.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.