At least, in evoking Minerva, the ancient Roman goddess of warriors and wisdom (and commerce, poetry, medicine, crafts--she was apparently a bit of a professional student), the Pentagon didn't come up with a credibility-zapping name, like the "Center for the Non-Lethal Study of Indigenous Peoples" or somesuch.

A couple of random thoughts:

ROTC, Foreign Languages, the Off-Campus Movement

I appreciated the SECDEF's comments regarding ROTC and study of foreign languages. I find it interesting that, since my own undergraduate experiences back in the 1980s, my alma mater has since eliminated its foreign language department. The university now encourages students to study abroad for a semester or two. It seems like it would be a good thing for future Army (in my case) leaders to be exposed in this way, not only for language-acquisition, but for developing cultural awarness. Too many lieutenants' first experiences with someone unlike themselves happen inside the sandbox. Better to build perspective prior to deployment.

As a personal aside, I also appreciated his comments regarding ROTC-off-campus movement. Back in the day, it was the sociology faculty that initiated such a movement on my undergraduate campus. ROTC was subsequently moved into an off-campus building, but the program there, I'm pleased to report, continues to this day. Ironically, the sociology tribe backfilled the office space that had been academically cleansed of the warrior caste.

The morale to the anecdote: As a potentially secondary effect, I'd hope that efforts such as the Minerva Consortium would help break down some walls within the ivory tower, and build some mutual understanding among those wearing tweed jackets and those wearing a uniform.

Applied vs. Basic Soft-Science

I wonder whether Minerva Consortium efforts might also result in some questionable avenues for academic research. I recently spent a couple of years on the campus of a land-grant (heavy on the engineering, design, and applied-science stuff) university, on which some architecture professors were targeting "homeland security" grant monies. Homeland security was a big pot o' gold, particularly when compared to the grant amounts typically available to the humanities.

In this citizen-soldier-taxpayer's opinion, the research proposals I encountered there passed the common-sense test only if they resulted in a deliverable product/concept applicable, in the relatively short-term, to the soldier/field/battlespace.

In short, in comes down to Ye Olde Question of applied vs. basic research. The proposed applications had better make sense, too. In terms of architecture, for example, I'm all for studies such as "how to construct or manufacture lighter and stronger blast-walls," but not so much a fan of "how to make temporary U.S. military housing feel more like home, while also making the exterior reflect the cultural context of its surroundings."

In terms of anthropology, I'm more apt to argue for a hands-on "community planning" approach--how can we support governance at a local level, for example--rather than a more purely academic approach about this sheik, his father, and his father's father.

Anyone have any king-and-grantmaker-for-a-day suggestions on how to ensure any future Minerva research funding would best be used? What metrics would be applied?

In the meantime, I'll be dusting off my senior design project--an interpretative dance about building community consensus around a village center constructed of concrete-impregnated Kevlar.