Comments on: Here we go again… http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/ Thu, 17 May 2012 03:03:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: IvyLeagueGrunt http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-16301 IvyLeagueGrunt Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:14:07 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-16301 Leslie's comment was out of line. While I don't necessarily think that the entire Columbia campus is out to get the Military, the kind of bias and prejudice she perpetrates is prevalent enough on campus among students and faculty to be noticeable, with a severe lack of fair alternative viewpoints. This, I think, is why Matt is still talking about the incident. Not to serve his own interests but because it is still pretty much acceptable at Columbia to bash members of the military, make derogatory comments about them, and insinuate that Marines are murderers and no one will stand up to it. Often times this is because people on this campus are completely ignorant about the military altogether, yet they continue to claim intellectual superiority... Leslie’s comment was out of line. While I don’t necessarily think that the entire Columbia campus is out to get the Military, the kind of bias and prejudice she perpetrates is prevalent enough on campus among students and faculty to be noticeable, with a severe lack of fair alternative viewpoints.
This, I think, is why Matt is still talking about the incident. Not to serve his own interests but because it is still pretty much acceptable at Columbia to bash members of the military, make derogatory comments about them, and insinuate that Marines are murderers and no one will stand up to it.
Often times this is because people on this campus are completely ignorant about the military altogether, yet they continue to claim intellectual superiority…

]]> By: Anonymous http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-16204 Anonymous Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:09:02 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-16204 1. I never changed my story. 2. I don't think you saw the official complaint. 3. I said the whole ISO table came over. It wasn't until later that I learned their names, including but not limited to: Zach Zill, Birch, and Monique Dols. 4. I'm astounded at how self-content and uninquisitive so many of the critics on this site have been. 1. I never changed my story.
2. I don’t think you saw the official complaint.
3. I said the whole ISO table came over. It wasn’t until later that I learned their names, including but not limited to: Zach Zill, Birch, and Monique Dols.
4. I’m astounded at how self-content and uninquisitive so many of the critics on this site have been.

]]> By: Anonymous http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-16203 Anonymous Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:01:38 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-16203 Gee Leslie, you're kind of making my point. What the hell did I have to do with "civilian murders". Why not change "Marines" to blacks and cite all the murders that took place last year that were perpetrated by blacks? Just to be fair and balanced. Gee Leslie, you’re kind of making my point. What the hell did I have to do with “civilian murders”.

Why not change “Marines” to blacks and cite all the murders that took place last year that were perpetrated by blacks? Just to be fair and balanced.

]]> By: Anonymous http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-16202 Anonymous Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:45:26 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-16202 What makes you think Columbia is above reproach? Columbia should be embarrassed for allowing groups like the ISO to make them look like morons. What makes you think Columbia is above reproach? Columbia should be embarrassed for allowing groups like the ISO to make them look like morons.

]]> By: leslie http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-16111 leslie Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:24:48 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-16111 I'm just asking...is there a problem here? Civilian Rape & Murder of a Child in Iraq by US Marines http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2423394.php Civilian Rape & Murder in Philippines by US Marines http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2736968&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 Multiple Civilian Murders in Iraq by Us Marines: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_re_us/marines_haditha_20 And we're not allowed to challenge Matt Sanchez because....? Did you all not notice the common thread here: Marines + Civilians = Murder? Does FOX NEWS not read the other news? Oh sorry, have to get the Spec, Sun or the Post to write it for them...what was I thinking? outta here....! I’m just asking…is there a problem here?

Civilian Rape & Murder of a Child in Iraq by US Marines

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2423394.php

Civilian Rape & Murder in Philippines by US Marines

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2736968&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Multiple Civilian Murders in Iraq by Us Marines:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061221/ap_on_re_us/marines_haditha_20

And we’re not allowed to challenge Matt Sanchez because….?

Did you all not notice the common thread here: Marines + Civilians = Murder?

Does FOX NEWS not read the other news?

Oh sorry, have to get the Spec, Sun or the Post to write it for them…what was I thinking?

outta here….!

]]> By: By the way http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15081 By the way Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:43:58 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15081 Anyone still enjoying this conversation should definitely go to law school. Anyone still enjoying this conversation should definitely go to law school.

]]> By: Was I not clear? http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15075 Was I not clear? Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:20:39 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15075 Please read the post again. The external link goes to the policy concerning recruiting on campus, which is what applied to the ROTC. The passage I actually quoted is the general policy of the university and I didn't claim that the ROTC falls under that. The only reason I quoted that was to show that the actual non-discrimination policy is clearly defined and has limits. With respect to Brinkley, you can talk about his language all you want, but his words do not change university policy. If his language was used to selectively apply a policy, then you'd have a case. Please read the post again. The external link goes to the policy concerning recruiting on campus, which is what applied to the ROTC. The passage I actually quoted is the general policy of the university and I didn’t claim that the ROTC falls under that. The only reason I quoted that was to show that the actual non-discrimination policy is clearly defined and has limits. With respect to Brinkley, you can talk about his language all you want, but his words do not change university policy. If his language was used to selectively apply a policy, then you’d have a case.

]]> By: Wrong http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15074 Wrong Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:19:14 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15074 Outside organizations use university buildings, staff, and resources all the time (granted, they PAY for them) wihtout being university-administered or funded programs. Outside organizations use university buildings, staff, and resources all the time (granted, they PAY for them) wihtout being university-administered or funded programs.

]]> By: ROTC is http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15073 ROTC is Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:15:25 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15073 a university-administered or funded program. ROTC would use university buildings, staff, and resources. a university-administered or funded program.
ROTC would use university buildings, staff, and resources.

]]> By: Question http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15071 Question Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:10:28 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15071 Since when does permitting ROTC not fit within the "stated, written" policy that you quoted? Just yelling "Too Simplistic!" is not a convincing argument. ROTC, as far as I know, is not a university-administered or funded program. Just like the Red Cross. Brinkley himself admitted as much when he talked about a violation of the "spirit" of the non-discrimination policy, relying, I suppose, on the same sort of murky legalisms that drew Roe v. Wade out of "penumbras" and "emanations". Since when does permitting ROTC not fit within the “stated, written” policy that you quoted? Just yelling “Too Simplistic!” is not a convincing argument. ROTC, as far as I know, is not a university-administered or funded program. Just like the Red Cross. Brinkley himself admitted as much when he talked about a violation of the “spirit” of the non-discrimination policy, relying, I suppose, on the same sort of murky legalisms that drew Roe v. Wade out of “penumbras” and “emanations”.

]]> By: Too simplistic! http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15069 Too simplistic! Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:55:15 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15069 You're talking about some general notion against discrimination as opposed to a STATED POLICY of the university which must be followed and applied consistently. Here you can find THE POLICY under which the ROTC was banned: http://www.cce.columbia.edu/employers/policies.php#1 This policy is obviously inapplicable in the blood donation sceneario. The NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY of the University in general can also be found there with a link to a statement on their own policies. Here's their general policy: "The University has established the following policy on non-discrimination: Columbia University admits students of any race, color, national and ethnic origin, and age to all the rights, privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to students at the University. It does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, national and ethnic origin, or age in administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other University-administered programs." You'd have to really struggle to fit the Red Cross' situation under that policy. Remember, there's discrimination everywhere, so it's not like the University has a policy that says: "We don't discriminate." Then what about Barnard, what about single-sex suites in Carman? What about EVERYTHING?! Sure the administrators will say "We have a universal non-discrimination policy," but (a) that's always in respect to something and in some specific situation, and (b) that's all fluff anyway. The university only has to follow stated, written policies, and to that extent, it seems like they're being consistent. If you can find some definite language showing that they're being inconsistent, something undisputable or reinterpretable, then by all means bring it to their attention. Now, are they being hypocritical in condemning the military but not the Red Cross? Maybe, but that doesn't mean they're inconsistently applying a policy. You’re talking about some general notion against discrimination as opposed to a STATED POLICY of the university which must be followed and applied consistently. Here you can find THE POLICY under which the ROTC was banned:

http://www.cce.columbia.edu/employers/policies.php#1

This policy is obviously inapplicable in the blood donation sceneario.

The NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY of the University in general can also be found there with a link to a statement on their own policies. Here’s their general policy:

“The University has established the following policy on non-discrimination:

Columbia University admits students of any race, color, national and ethnic origin, and age to all the rights, privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to students at the University. It does not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, sexual orientation, national and ethnic origin, or age in administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other University-administered programs.”

You’d have to really struggle to fit the Red Cross’ situation under that policy.

Remember, there’s discrimination everywhere, so it’s not like the University has a policy that says: “We don’t discriminate.” Then what about Barnard, what about single-sex suites in Carman? What about EVERYTHING?! Sure the administrators will say “We have a universal non-discrimination policy,” but (a) that’s always in respect to something and in some specific situation, and (b) that’s all fluff anyway. The university only has to follow stated, written policies, and to that extent, it seems like they’re being consistent. If you can find some definite language showing that they’re being inconsistent, something undisputable or reinterpretable, then by all means bring it to their attention.

Now, are they being hypocritical in condemning the military but not the Red Cross? Maybe, but that doesn’t mean they’re inconsistently applying a policy.

]]> By: I disagree http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15064 I disagree Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:29:45 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15064 You said "they both discriminate, which has never been disputed" But how come only one of them is sanctioned under the non-discrimination policy? I'm not made very comfortable by a university that claims its non-discrimination policy is universal, but selectively enforces it. You said “they both discriminate, which has never been disputed” But how come only one of them is sanctioned under the non-discrimination policy? I’m not made very comfortable by a university that claims its non-discrimination policy is universal, but selectively enforces it.

]]> By: I know http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15057 I know Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:06:55 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15057 They both discriminate, which has never been disputed. But you do have to look to the nature of the discrimination when making these kinds of judgments, and that's what Columbia did. In the ROTC's case, there's deprivation of rights and harm. In the Red Cross' case, there's no cognizable harm to those prevented from donating. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the policy, I'm just pointing out that Columbia is not being hypocritical here. Banning the ROTC does not necessitate banning of the Red Cross for consistency's sake. There's a solid principle behind it, whether or not you agree with it. Think about it if you were in the position of someone in the administration. Despite the distateful policy of the Red Cross, would you ban them from access to such a willing, able and healthy group of donors when that blood is available to all? The administration thinks not, and since the case is dintinguishable from the ROTC, they are not compelled to ban them on principle. ASIDE: I'm not sure what equally bad discrimination is, but that view seems a bit simplistic. They both discriminate, which has never been disputed. But you do have to look to the nature of the discrimination when making these kinds of judgments, and that’s what Columbia did. In the ROTC’s case, there’s deprivation of rights and harm. In the Red Cross’ case, there’s no cognizable harm to those prevented from donating. Again, I’m not saying I agree with the policy, I’m just pointing out that Columbia is not being hypocritical here. Banning the ROTC does not necessitate banning of the Red Cross for consistency’s sake. There’s a solid principle behind it, whether or not you agree with it. Think about it if you were in the position of someone in the administration. Despite the distateful policy of the Red Cross, would you ban them from access to such a willing, able and healthy group of donors when that blood is available to all? The administration thinks not, and since the case is dintinguishable from the ROTC, they are not compelled to ban them on principle. ASIDE: I’m not sure what equally bad discrimination is, but that view seems a bit simplistic.

]]> By: I disagree http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15054 I disagree Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:54:39 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15054 "Isn't proselytizing essentially recruiting?" Isn't that just speech? Are you ready to label as "recruiting" all other speech with a particular viewpoint and an associated organization? “Isn’t proselytizing essentially recruiting?” Isn’t that just speech? Are you ready to label as “recruiting” all other speech with a particular viewpoint and an associated organization?

]]> By: What's worse? http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again/#comment-15048 What's worse? Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:42:07 +0000 http://bwog.com/2006/12/05/here-we-go-again#comment-15048 Refusing to hire gays or hiring people who are required to discriminate against gays? Both are equally bad if you ask me. Refusing to hire gays or hiring people who are required to discriminate against gays? Both are equally bad if you ask me.

]]>