I really think you totally missed her point. She isn't saying she doesn't want academic debate or doesn't want the class to interact with her. I certainly don't think it has anything to do with being a "military hating liberal" (which is a stupid phrase anyway).

She's saying the classroom isn't the place for you to get something off your chest. If you want to tell war stories, go hang out with your buddies at the bar. If you need help managing psychological stress, talk to a shrink. Neither belongs in a college classroom, unless the war story directly relates to the topic at hand and illuminates a wider academic point...not a just a "no shit, there I was..."

A class on military history is going to be about, well, history. It's not going to be training in small unit tactics or a "let's all get in a room and BS about all things military for three hours a week" type thing/ The topic of any given lecture is going to be pretty academic. If the professor is lecturing about the professionalization of military forces in the Renaissance or the military structure of the Byzantine Empire, the fact that someone was an E4 in the US military from 2007-2010 is completely, totally irrelevant and they should absolutely sit and try to learn from someone who is almost certainly vastly better read on the topic than they are.

I do think I might have missed the point. I focused on a couple of her views and saw red. Lots of cooler heads than mine on the subject-maybe I should wait to see which way the wind blows before posting?-but I wouldn't be a MGunns if I was like that.

First, I think she exaggerated the rate of PTSD etc in her student body, and she needs to stick to history, not psychiatric diagnosis. I agree that therapy is not appropriate in the classroom, but I think she blew a couple of anecdotal experiences out of proportion to make her point. She's been teaching this subject for 30 years, we've been at war for 10, and she's never had veterans or ROTC students in her classes? All the PTSD vets showed up in one semester? Just another example of how our current veterans are being victimized by many of the same stereotypes that plagued the Vietnam vets.

Secondly, I do not care for the attitude of many academics who believe that a student's responsibility should be rote memorization of whatever viewpoint the professor chooses to teach. I thought the objective of higher learning was to learn to think for yourself and apply the knowledge to your future life. Isn't the point of an ROTC cadet taking her course to apply some critical thinking to the causes and effects of the Tet offensive, and examine the similarities/differences in politics and strategies to our current and future battles? Shouldn't they be discussing the effects of inter-service rivalry and doctrine on how strategies are formed?

My college experience included a lot of student participation and debate, and I probably learned more about the subjects from my classmates than the instructors. Granted, in my academic programs it was expected that the students would have applicable experience in the field, and we spent a lot of time on debate and personal experiences. In her case, I think she felt challenged by students who were older and more experienced than the average 18 year old freshman. In my mind, she is missing some opportunities to expand on her subject and involve her students.

Unfortunately this teacher's story sounds very familiar. Many former/current military service members are of the same mentality when it comes to their military colleagues, their time in the military, etc.

Military personnel contribute a lot to the classroom.. diversity always enhances the learning experience and it's important for people to understand and learn about other perspectives; military and non-military students have a lot to learn from each other. However, it is unacceptable for militarily affiliated students, or any other students, to create a hostile environment in the classroom; intimidation inhibits education.

This teacher's experiences are probably a byproduct of the USG's inadequacies in treating GWOT veterans suffering from PTSD... the USG was unprepared and arguably unwilling to deal with the consequences of OEF and OIF, and many veterans/active duty military personnel are left un/under treated (or over medicated) after their deployments.

MGunns, I think you hit it on the head! I am one of those "ROTC" officers, but also was enlisted prior to commisioning. Fortunately I went to a "Land Grant University" (U of WY) that required certain things, including programs like ROTC. Also, we live in a state where service is almost expected from every family, and there are relatively few "anti-military" outside our largest 3 cities.

If a MILITARY history professor has a problem with servicemen and women, they definately need to change professions. As EVERY Officer, and the overwhelming majority of NCOs can attest, it is by knowing our history that we can understand what is happening around the world. They do not only study tactics, but spend many, many hours studying various political systems and how they affected the world.

While much of my ROTC time was spent in PT, FTX (Field training exercises), and studying of the various weapons we were likely to face in the real world, we spent even more time studying the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the various terrorist groups around the world. We knew who was doing what, and because we studied the motivation, we could discuss the possible consequences we would face.

As for the inter-service rivalry that we have all experienced, you have to have served to understand. Every branch has it's specialty, and it's pride in service. And when bullets are flying, we prefer people we have trained with. But that does not mean we do not want the other branches around! And as I told my sons, before they both joined the Marines, "you have not EARNED the right to call a ____ a _____ yet". We all know that most of the jabs at people from other services is done with some respect for what that person has done. Now, as I prepare to see my youngest graduate from MCRD (Marine Boot Camp), I will call him a "Jar Head", and he will call me a "Leg" or some other deragatory name for an Army Officer, but he has now earned that right.

Master Guns, Thank you for your service. Semper Fidelis

Can you explain why you seem so confident that this woman is "anti-military"? None of her comments seem unreasonable to me, and they certainly don't constitute a criticism of the military as a whole.

We've discussed the "entitlement" attitude before, and I think this tendency is a close cousin: anyone who says anything less than glowing about a servicemember in any context is automatically branded as some kind of anti-military extremist who hates ALL servicemembers.

Man up guys, man up, stoopid auto-correct!

I agree completely with this professor. The sense of entitlement veterans have on the campuses of this country is shameful. I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE when someone finds out I served in the US Army, because it undoubtedly means I have to hear some half-cocked fake story of their service. I don't know what's worse, the fact they feel they can lie to my face or that they'll keep going even with the visible disinterest look on my face.

Even in the wake of growing trends like this, the VA wants to blame SCHOOLs for the abysmal current G.I. Bill dropout rate by accusing that they not doing enough to hold Veterans hands through the college experience. Well excuse most University Presidents for assuming that if these 18-35 year olds could make it through a term of military service they could handle community college.

If you want to tell War stories go grab a beer and tell it to the guys at the VFW or American Legion. People paid upwards to $1200 to get an education, not hear about that one time you got hit with like a million IEDs. If the professor asks for any personal accounts then that's fine, but otherwise keep your mouth shut and your hand down because some of us spent 4+ years in service to get a decent education.

Don't even get me started on the clowns who walk around campus with their combat boots and ACU Assault Pack on.

"Don't even get me started on the clowns who walk around campus with their combat boots and ACU Assault Pack on." Spit-take!

What, that's not fashion forward? Deployment chic, baby! Why drop all that dough on some spankin' new Timbahlands when you've already got a pair of broken-in second cousins (low-rent cousins, admittedly, but...)

Here in CO, I only have to wait about 4 more months before I see the ACU parkas and Gore-tex pants bombing down the slopes. So I've got that going for me...

And spot-on with all that precedes, as well.

Someone somewhere in our society has to be Gary Cooper. If you have a problem, man up and go get it fixed where you get that problem fixed...dentist for your teeth, garage for your car and if you have PTSD, get your ass out of class and into the VA...Dont take it out on everyone in a class on military history....and oh by the way, the present wars are not done...so study the ones that are already done...

The law professor analogy is interesting. It may be apt, though I'd draw no conclusions without knowing more about this specific case. We do hear a lot about high incidence of inadequately treated PTSD or other war-related conditions, and more generally of alienation of some military personnel from the civilian population; without being able to say if this is a data point for either discussion, I expect both will pop up in some unexpected ways for years to come.

You hear a lot about PTSD because it makes interesting reads, it affects only about 20-25% of Combat Vets. PTSD is also such a broad diagnoses that it can mean anything from being jumpy due to being fresh from the field to being totally dysfunctional in interacting with others but for the most part the stereotype is one of the medias making and is BS and I am willing to bet a large portion of the folks in that class had not a symptom of PTSD but that the teacher interpreted it that way mostly due to the popular media images we get. I suggest reading a book called "Stolen Valor" to get a better grasp on this, the book still holds sway today and help clear up a lot of mis-conceptions about vets and the media that provides those mis-conceptions. Reading the comment section of the article that was linked to leads me to believe we have more than a few Vets who have a high sense of entitlement and it is a bit embarrassing to me to see the guys post the way the do.

...but trying to put myself in the professor's shoes, I can see how she might have a hard time distinguishing people needing medical or at least emotional support she isn't trained to provide from folks who are just so used to relating to military people they have difficulty communicating with anyone else. It's not just a question of what's going on inside some veteran's head, but also how a civilian is supposed to tell.

Two thoughts about this: first, civilians can learn over time. It's been a while since this country had a large cohort of service people with extensive recent exposure to combat, and we should expect everyone to get a lot of things wrong until they have time to adjust. The second thing I don't really know how to evaluate: the number of military personnel who have been through multiple deployments, not just one or two. How is that kind of experience different, in terms of reintegrating into civilian or even peacetime military life? I ask the question without having any answer to suggest.

"Maybe they do, maybe they don't..."-

Simple numbers tell me they don't. There are only about 22 million vets alive in the entire US, that is from WWII on, and the number who have served the last 10 years and in college is tiny in relation to that number and the number of vets who actually saw combat is even smaller. The odds of getting a bunch of PTSD ridden vets in her class is pretty slim. From her article and from my time going back to college after my first hitch I am pretty confident that she gets a lot of her ideas about what constitutes PTSD from popular culture. Anyone with at least a little experience with the military would know that most of the digs at each other are just that, digs meant as humor. Some of here other observations as to what constitutes being disturbed or "scarred" are telling as to what her personal and/or political beliefs are.

"Two thoughts about this: first, civilians can learn over time. It's been a while since this country had a large cohort of service people with extensive recent exposure to combat, and we should expect everyone to get a lot of things wrong until they have time to adjust."-

There are just not that many of us, no large cohort and only a small cohort has seen combat. The tooth to tail ratio in the Military is pretty high as is the fact that two of our branches are not doing a lot of stuff in Afghanistan outside of their SOF elements and Air.

"The second thing I don't really know how to evaluate: the number of military personnel who have been through multiple deployments, not just one or two. How is that kind of experience different, in terms of reintegrating into civilian or even peacetime military life? I ask the question without having any answer to suggest"-

It's not hard, fighting the image of the nutty vet who is going to snap at any minute is hard and from what I see of the media it is not going to change much anytime soon. Really suggest you read "Stolen Valor" to get a better idea of the reality of things. It has not been updated in a while but I would bet the same stats hold true today and it's message more certainly does.

If shooting a rifle and getting hit with a roadside bomb suddenly made you a Subject Matter expert on Military History we'd have a lot more "strategic corporals" and a lot les s of the idiots running around right now throwing puppies off cliffs and farting around Afghans for fun.

Are you going to try to take the Illustrious Author of this blog down at the knees too?

"Born in Massachusetts in 1955, he grew up in New York and Afghanistan and graduated from Yale in 1977. He now lives in Silver Spring, Md., with his wife and children. For recreation he enjoys whitewater kayaking, downhill skiing, and reading military history. He is a memberof the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, the Society for Military History, and the International Institute for Strategic Studies."

Don't see anything about military service in his Bio, guess that means he's a just a hack right?

instead of making your own conclusions. Obviously this subject has touched a sore nerve with you. Tom ricks has never backed off from engaging with current and prior servicemen, unlike the UT Prof in question. YOu dont see law professors avoiding lawyers, or MBA professors avoiding businessmen like this prof wants to insulate herself from the practicioners of what she teaches.

Reports come out saying more than 44% of OIF/OEF veterans have sought PTSD help. Of that 39% were diagnosed with Depression and/or PTSD. That's over 1 in 3 veterans having mental issues.

Rand says 1 in 5 have PTSD or Depression. So until more veterans start seeking effective help to counter their mental issues, your going to keep hearing that "stereotype".

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/01/military_veterans_carestats_011609w/

Now back to Dr. Joyce. Kinda hard to call her a hack or not a real academic just because she doesn't want to deal with neurotic veterans after looking at her record. She does not specialize in Military History it seems, but she is qualified to teach it. Lets take a look at her syllabus shall we?

"This course surveys the American military from the first European “invasion” to creation of the modern U.S. military establishment. It is not devoted to the science of military tactics or military technology. This is a class examining selected topics of the U.S. military as an institution integrally connected to U.S. political, social, cultural developments. It will emphasize the European heritage of the U.S. military; the debates about a “unique” American way of war; the mythology of the citizen soldier; the evolution of the U.S. professional standing army; the impact of the industrial, scientific, and managerial revolutions on the military; and the relationship between civil and military authority. It will consider the difficult, awkward, and contradictory relationship between the perceived need for a professional military force and the insistence on individual liberty that is deemed crucial to our democratic republic."

So you can tell her class is probably the good, the bad, and the ugly. It's probably an objective look, hence why she uses HISTORY to teach it and not personal military experiences. Where does it say she backed down from engaging servicemen?

"Students find me accessible, and I listened sympathetically to each one"

She listened to them all, but it doesn't mean she's mandated to take their irrelevant stories and put it in her military history class. What she is mandated is to impart critical thinking skills and objective reporting skills to her students. So in fact she isn't "avoiding practitioners of what she teaches" because those students are there for the wrong reasons. Military History is 85% history and 15% military. she even says it for herself "It is not devoted to the science of military tactics or military technology".

But it's all moot, because the comments section of her blog post clearly validates her position.

"If you are an American, you have a moral duty to try and bridge the widening gap between the 1% who serve and the 99% who don't understand"

"I firmly believe that no one who is not a combat veteran can competently teach military history"

http://www.uta.edu/faculty/maizlish/11s3356G.htm
http://www.uta.edu/history/transatlantic/goldberg.htm
http://www.uta.edu/ra/real/editprofile.php?onlyview=1&pid=1520

I took an excellent military history course at the UW Madison and professor (in this case ex military and taught at west point) made this very clear. I however feel that the student body (also heavily tilted towards ROTC and other people personally involved with the military) accepted this because of the professor's own military credentials. One should however not have to have served in the military in order to teach military history, the two can be at times almost entirely unrelated.

"Reports come out saying more than 44% of OIF/OEF veterans have sought PTSD help. Of that 39% were diagnosed with Depression and/or PTSD. That's over 1 in 3 veterans having mental issues"-

Considering KAF and BAF have tens of thousands of troops on them that serve their whole tours in those places and rarely, if at all, venture out of the FOBs, what are they getting PTSD from? Is the 44% and 1 in 3 of from the number of Combat Vets?

It's called being humble.

All it means is that you recharge by having time to yourself and prefer in-depth one-on-one conversations to hanging out in groups. Extroverts get their energy from being around people. You could be humble and introverted. Nothing wrong with either.

There is a balance that needs to be stuck in teaching class like this. In my case, I am "pro-military" in that I have volumes of respect for servicemen and women. However, that doesn't mean you foreclose some series critical discussion of the politics, strategy, and even tactics of foreign intervention. As a whole, my own specialty--post-colonial studies--tends to be critical of any foreign intervention and identifies with non-western resistance in almost all cases. Yet, this lens offers some real value to anyone including U. S. military and civilian personnel. What makes it difficult is that it takes real care to be respectful of both sides when you are studying conflict. I am probably a bit of an outlier in the field, because I make sure to include both voices.

In the same way, I try to leave a space open for discussing hotly contested political and philosophical issues even when I have my own agenda teaching a subject. In one class, the subject of torture came up and I assigned readings including Mark Bowden's "The Dark Art of Interrogation," which is a serious and thoughtful pro and con piece that appeared in the Atlantic. I, of course, have strong views on the topic; I am unconvinced it works and find the practice immoral and illegal. However, the class itself was--to my surprise--divided 50-50 on the matter and the best debate occurred among the students. Most of the time, I stayed out of the way. Every teacher has their politics; that is an inescapable part of any class. The important part is to encourage critical thinking tools and leave the students to sort out their own politics.

I think you missed the point, there are no honest "Military History" Classes to speak of in most of the NE College Campuses outside of ROTC. They are almost all "Peace and Conflict" studies and rarely have much of anything to do with actual history.

Awww...you big old softy!

Hanging around a group of veterans is not a picnic all the time. I usually don't find myself in a large group of veterans outside of Memorial Day, but I did happen to visit a VA hospital shortly after leaving the Regular Army and decided to avoid things like that because there is too much misery all in one place.

Yes, there is a difference. The vets of WW2 were almost entirely conscripts coming from all social classes and represented America form top to bottom. And crucially they came home with the knowledge that their war was won. While PTSD issues were prevalent among combat WW2 vets at least they had the knowledge that their sacrifice bought the world something useful. I only wish I could say that about my boy.

If my dad and uncles (two combat one staff) are any examples they did not harp upon their service as much as vets seem to today. In fact, many combat vets put that experience clearly behind them and forged ahead with new lives. Also, perhaps because of the sheer number of vets the public was not so infatuated with veterans as hero’s but as good citizens whom we owed something special unlike our poor treatment of vets from WW1.

"I am so tired of this worn out notion of the damaged combat veteran. I resent it. I don't believe it is the case for many of us."

I could not agree more with this statement, tired of it and tired of fighting the stereotype. The media STILL does not help matters in this area and we are soon due for a slew of movies and tv shows I am sure the will embrace that stereotype since it makes for good drama.

all the studies in the early 2000s that were linking low Intelligence to an increased susceptibility to PTSD, maybe they wouldn't have accepted all those CAT IV recruits from 2004 to now.

Ha! Ouch! Cannot wait to see the replies to that shot across the bow! The Military does ignore a lot of it's own studies if it does not suit there immediate needs, be they political or practical.

I read an article a few months ago about the veterans program at Georgetown and yes, they do go out of their way to recruit vets. My school does too and as a result there are quite a few vets enrolled.

Universities such as Georgetown recruit a certain type of veteran that are above the level of the usual OIF and OEF veteran found at U of T or ASU.

Speculation? Or can you back that up with data?

And frankly, I was addressing what Tom said. Why would you chime in with an unsupported irrelevancy like that? Reading this thread, it looks like you are trolling. Is that you Admiral?

B)I can't believe you want to argue that a state university's admissions program is just as demanding as Georgetown's.

Here are the Transfer Requirements for Georgetown and U of T.

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/transfer/admission/requirements
U of T: $75.00, a Resume, 2 Essays,College Transcripts, and LoRs if you'd like.

"There are no extra application requirements for military students and no guaranteed admission standards. Although we do attempt to be sensitive to military students’ mobility and special commitments, we do not typically provide early admission decisions because of the timeline of our admissions process."

http://uadmissions.georgetown.edu/transfer/
GU: $65, High School Transcripts, College Transcripts, a Dean's Report, a Recommendation from a Professor at your current school, an Alumni Interview if you'd like.

By the way, in 2011 only 10% of applicants got to transfer to Georgetown.

and this little dandy for Veterans "The Transfer Application is the same for active military / veterans as for all transfer students. Please, review application to review special sections for active military and veterans."

Veterans get no special treatment when entering Georgetown, they have the compete on their own merits. The only substitute they get is they can trade a professor's LoR for a Military Officer's.

So as you can see YES indeed Georgetown is looking for a different kind of Veteran. Georgetown doesn't care about taking G.I. Bill money, they care about producing Competent Academics. They have a great Veterans program because most Veterans there are mature, responsible adults who don't need their hand held from class to class, semester to semester.

My comment wasn't irreverent at all, and I guess I'll spell everything out to you from now on if you can't deduce things on your own and need to follow the bouncing ball.

You was trolling.