The results from the Task Force on Military Engagement’s student survey are in, and will not be officially released until tomorrow. While 11,629 students were eligible to participate, only 2,252 completed the survey. Check out the Task Force’s full ‘Executive Summary’ here, which contains survey results, the Task Force’s suggestions and Columbia’s history with the military.

Sixty percent of the students who did participate approved of a return of ROTC to CU’s campuses, while 79 percent of participants approved of “Columbia allowing the participation of Columbia students in ROTC, whether on- or off-campus.”

At the end of its executive summary, the Task Force makes five assertions:

Our current relationships with the military enrich the Columbia community.

Columbia’s relationship with ROTC is an issue of concern and the matter should be addressed formally by the University Senate at present.

Columbia should actively support the endeavors of individual students to participate in ROTC programs, whether on- or off-campus.

If ROTC is to return to Columbia, the faculty and Deans must retain full jurisdiction over questions of academic credit, appointments, and governance.

Columbia’s non-discrimination policy is important and encourages a tolerant and open community.

Also notable is that, according to the Boston Globe, Harvard will both formally recognize on campus and fund the NROTC, with cadets still training at MIT.

The University Senate released an online survey this evening aimed to gauge student opinion on the subject of military presence at Columbia. There are general questions about the military’s relationship with Columbia, and there is a question that directly asks: I ______ of a return of ROTC to Columbia’s campuses.

You can access the survey via their web page and log in with your UNI (however, they stress the survey is anonymous). It starts tonight at 8pm and will be open until next Thursday, February 24 at 11:59pm.

Read the questions after the jump…

Read more…

It’s that time of year–the Dining Services Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010 is here! For every survey that is filled out, Dining Services will donate $0.50 to the soup kitchen at the Broadway Presbyterian Church. In addition, Dining Services will match, in food donations, the total donation amount from all of the surveys taken. Also, something Bwog didn’t know until we checked the survey:

Thanks to patronage at our Dining units, Dining Services is able to give our union employees a living wage salary. They also receive health insurance, vacation time, sick days, and job security– benefits which are not offered traditionally at many restaurants and dining locations in the industry.

When the results of the NROTC survey were released last week, students complained that the results had been combined for CC, SEAS, and GS. While the breakdown may no longer matter that much, Bwog has finally obtained the percentage breakdown by school:

Combined with Barnard’s results, this means that two schools voted for, and two schools against, with the depth of opposition in Barnard and the size of the CC vote making the difference. Again, not that it matters any more.

In a statement to the GS student body, GSSC President Brody Berg expressed skepticism about the results of the NROTC survey, writing that “I believe that this poll result is meaningless due to the huge number of apparently fraudulent votes.” Although almost 2000 fraudulent votes were removed (including one student who voted 276 times) by matching one ID with one vote, Berg expressed skepticism that this strategy was adequate, further noting that “the votes thrown out were done with no supervision.”

“Even though the side I support ‘won,’” he concluded, “due to the huge number of fraudulent votes, myself and the Executive Board of the General Studies Student Council believe both General Studies and the Columbia community at large would be better served on this controversial issue with a poll whose results we can trust.” Earlier in the day, CCSC president George Krebs had expressed confidence in the result, writing in his CCSC email that “Multiple votes were not counted. If a student attempted to vote multiple times, only the last vote they cast was counted.”

Bwog notes that many of the multiple results probably came from students sharing links with each other, as occurred with the Democrats (who sent a listserve email with one person’s link) and Bwog itself. If the last vote was counted, then the last person to use that link would be the one whose vote counted. In addition, questions about the ability to use others’ links and “hack the survey” remain unanswered.

Berg’s full e-mail after the jump. Bwog thinks this issue may not be over. Read more…

Guard the link to your NROTC survey with your life, as that link that was emailed to you this morning is a personalized link. What this strangely inefficient system means is that if someone clicks your link, they can change your vote.

Of course, this is only coming to light after numerous students group leaders have forwarded their survey emails to groupmembers with the intention of encouraging others to vote.  But don’t feel silly! Bwog posted our link earlier today too, before being gently reminded by a member of CCSC that someone had probably already changed our vote several times over.

Some version of the ROTC survey has been emailed to you this morning by the CCSC, ESC and GSSC. The survey will be open until December 1 and the councils encourage you to “take your time” with it.

A link to the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question “do you support bringing a Naval ROTC program to Columbia’s campus?” 

Each email contains an individualized link to the survey.

With the NROTC survey scheduled for the week of November 24th (the days before Thanksgiving), normally the events and editorials would already be flying back and forth. But with some sort of “election” last week, student groups are only just now coming around to the NROTC debate.

Leading opposition to the return of NROTC is a coalition of seven groups: Lucha, Chicano Caucus, CQA, EAAH, the Democrats, Proud Colors, and the Columbia Coalition Against the War (as well as the unrecognized SDS). The seven groups will be holding an event tonight in Lerner (which they have been advertising with a rather interesting poster, seen at right top), and plan to flyer campus through the survey.

Supporting NROTC’s return is a coalition of individual students, which, according to the group’s website, “includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Obama-voters, McCain-voters, veterans, students currently enrolled in Army ROTC at Fordham, students not affiliated with the military at all, gay students, and straight students.” The coalition includes several students who are also members of anti-NROTC groups. Like the anti-ROTC coalition, they will be postering, and in addition will be tabling until the survey finishes, but no events will be held.

Finally, the undergraduate councils plan to hold up to two forums about the issue, though dates are still to be announced. 

In the coming hours you will receive an email asking for your participation in an annual survey that Dining Services is conducting on all on-campus dining institutions.  Do you like them?  Are they too expensive?  Those are the kinds of answers they are looking for! 

To further motivate you, they’re offering to donate a total of $.50 per survey handed in to Broadway Presbyterian Church’s soup kitchen.  So for every three surveys turned in, they will donate one cup of Blue Java coffee. If that sounds nice, you should join the Dining Services Facebook Group so that you can always be the first to know about frozen yogurt changes in John Jay. 

Since Bwog broke the news of the ROTC referenda last month, the logistical details behind it have still been debated. However, it appears that the student councils at last have a plan. In an email sent by SGA earlier today, a letter from the four councils at the end spelled out more about the timing of, and the run-up to the survey. 

The survey itself will go out to the student body the week of November 17th. Original plans had considered late October as the most likely date, but, according to the email, “we have had to postpone the dates due to difficulties in getting the survey technology set up.” The survey will have one question (“Would you support NROTC on Columbia’s campus?”), though it is unknown at this time how many possible answers the question will have.

The week beforehand, there will be two forums, one at Barnard and one at Columbia, in a “pro vs. con setup.” The panels themselves will be composed of students as well, and students can submit questions. Deadline for participation in panels, despite the email not having reached any other undergraduate schools yet, is this Wednesday, October 22. The full email is after the jump. Read more…

Tonight’s NROTC Forum Planning meeting revolved around the logistics of the two community forums concerning NROTC on campus, to be held — according to CCSC VP of Policy Adil Ahmed and SGA President Sarah Besnoff — hopefully the last week of October. (Though Besnoff said again and again, with growing frustration, that the Councils were reluctant to confirm any dates.)

Here’s what’s been decided: As already mentioned, there will be two forums, one at Barnard, the other at Columbia. Both will be open to all students, and as of now, none will be open to non-CUID-holders. (Besnoff said that Fox News’ presence is a legitimate possibility, but to “assume at the moment we’re saying ‘no.’”)

Read more…

A bunch of you have sent us this Jezebel-by-way-of-other-blog post about how old-timey folks conducted surveys that assumed Barnard was full of hussies — just like you kids today joke about!

The newspaper clipping tells the story of how one time, probably in the 20s, the Jester published a “Purity Survey”, in which the gals of Barnard were asked sordid, old-timey things like if they’ve “soul kissed” and “Have you ever been tight?” With respect to that latter question, there were 38 nays and 32 yeas, and “of those answering in the affirmative, 14 said they had been tight once, 14 said they had been tight often, and four said that they were ‘usually tight.’”

Eww. Wait, what?

Anyway, it was apparently “too hot to print” and was banned and then unbanned, and afterwards no one ever implied anything about the promiscuity of Barnard students ever again.