72 Comments
Fox news has found another skeleton in Columbia’s closet. Fox’ Hannity and Colmes picked up the year-old story of Matt Sanchez, G’ 07, the Marine who was (depending on your politics) harassed or picked on by members of the ISO at the 2005 Activities Day Fair.
“They dehumanize people to get their agenda across,” Sanchez said about the ISO. “Right now, vets on Columbia’s campus are second class citizens.”
Not that this story doesn’t deserve the attention of cable news networks of record like Fox News. But this story is a year old!
Bwog’s on to you, Fox. Hannity and Colmes and the O’Reilly Factor go on every night, and you need segments to fill, and Columbia’s an easy mark. Just send a cameraman a few blocks north for some b-roll of Alma Mater and the Barnard gates, and invite the victimized over to the studio for a prime-time party.
Bwog would not be surprised if Fox, in desperate need of more knee-jerk segments, went to nursing homes and retirement communities to fish out the administrators harassed by the liberal jihadists of ’68. (Link added 2:55 pm)
–SEV
Loading …
72 Comments
@IvyLeagueGrunt 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 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….!
@Anonymous 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 the way Anyone still enjoying this conversation should definitely go to law school.
@Too simplistic! 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.
@Question 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”.
@ROTC is a university-administered or funded program.
ROTC would use university buildings, staff, and resources.
@Wrong Outside organizations use university buildings, staff, and resources all the time (granted, they PAY for them) wihtout being university-administered or funded programs.
@Was I not clear? 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.
@I disagree “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?
@Brinkley simply was stating what was easiest to say. Do you think he could go through all the analysis that probably went on? The apparent disparity betweent the treatment of the ROTC and the Red Cross is reconcilable, and I bet any future decisions in related areas would comport with the same analysis, regardless of whatever some spokesman says.
@Yup As long as working at the day care facility did not compensate them in any significant way, monetary or otherwise, I don’t think CU should ban them on the same principle as the ROTC. On the other hand, if the day care services were offered in a discriminatory fashion, that may require another level of analysis (not one required for the Red Cross v. ROTC issue, where the Red Cross does not discriminate in distributing the blood, and the Army does not discrminate in which part of the citizenry it defends). Now there’s a headline: “U.S. Military announces it will not protect gays.”
@But One last problem though. Should the Red Cross’s blood corps not be allowed to recruit for paid positions on campus now, since its employees are obligated to uphold explicitly anti-gay policies in their line of work – kind of like the military (which is implicitly anti-gay)?
@That's a tough one What do you think? Again, it would certainly fall under another level of analysis because the Red Cross does not discriminate in hiring for paid positions. I don’t know what that analysis would be or how it would come out, but I would guess the strength of the argument for banning the Red Cross might be a bit tenuous at that point. Whatever the outcome of that analysis, it will be inapplicable to the military recruiting scenario.
@What's worse? Refusing to hire gays or hiring people who are required to discriminate against gays? Both are equally bad if you ask me.
@I know 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.
@I disagree 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.
@Answer 1. PERHAPS, it’s a balancing test at that point. If it’s a nominal amount, then it’s probably still fine to let them in because it’s still essentially donating. If it’s a significant amount of money, then that’s like an employment opportunity and the school should boot them. Whether the school would, I don’t know.
2. NO, the military still bestows substantial rights and privileges and those should be offered to everyone on campus.
3. NO, the Church should not be allowed on if it discriminates. Do we have priests recruiting on campus?
Just to be clear, I’m not making any comment with respect to the purposes of each group. Collecting blood and defending the country are both important policies. I’m just saying CU has it right in this case in terms of denying student access to groups that offer opportunities in a discriminatory fashion. I don’t see how this is bad logic, I’m being consistent to this principle.
@I get it So bear with me a little longer..
1) If the Catholic church were recruiting for volunteers, for example, for a day care facility, they SHOULD be allowed on campus, EVEN THOUGH they discriminate.
2) If the Church were recruiting for paid positions, for example, as part of their administrative staff, they should be banned, BECAUSE they discriminate?
I’d like to see the headlines: “COLUMBIA BANS MILITARY, CATHOLICISM FROM CAMPUS”. Hahaha!
@Anyway The point I keep trying to make during this time is that we can’t choose when our policies apply and when they don’t. Brinkley said that DADT violated the “spirit” of the nondisc policy. However, the RC blood drive violates BOTH letter and spirit. Whereas DADT doesnt say gays arent allowed to be in the military (it just says they have to stay in the closet), the RC outright says gays arent allowed to donate blood.
On what basis do we decide when and where we choose to enforce our own rules and policies? I’m not convinced that whether or not it counts as an “employment opportunity” is the answer. I’m not convinced that “selective enforcement” is a good idea at all.
@yes we do You say “Do we have priests recruiting on campus?”
I say yes. Isn’t proselytizing essentially recruiting?
Secondly, is ROTC considered recruitment? It is a scholarship and officer training. I am being sincere here. I have always considered recruiting to be actual recruiting, not training. But I can definitely see how ROTC can be considered recruiting.
Are certain minority based scholarships considered discriminatory? They offer benefits to students, but discriminate against certain applicants based on race.
Isn’t Barnard essentially equally discriminatory based on sex?
The reason I bring up these issues is because since the church and Red Cross were raised, I started to think of other benefits that are exclusionary.
@But! None of my arguments say that I agree with the Red Cross, because I don’t. It’s just a dated phobia and the ban should be lifted especially in light of the extremely accurate testing methods available now. I just don’t think this misplaced Red Cross policy is a compelling reason to keep them from collecting blood from volunteer donors, whereas I do think we have a compelling reason to prevent recruiters from coming onto campus and offering opportunities selectively. Remember, this doesn’t just prevent homosexuals from becoming soldiers, this also includes working for the military in other capacities, such as becoming a JAG officer (see FAIR v. Rumsfeld).
@Bad logic So, you’re basically saying:
1. IF the Red Cross paid to receive blood, then it shouldn’t be allowed on campus.
2. IF the military does not pay, then it should be allowed on campus.
What about the Catholic church. Priests get paid, don’t they? Should the Catholic church not be allowed to pitch vocational careers to those interested?
@My argument with respect to the ROTC is just what I said it was. First of all, you’ve mixed up volunteering with voluntary service. Military service pays even though our enlistment scheme at the moment is on a voluntary basis. Second of all, military service bestows substantial rights on the serviceman, including veteran benefits, health care, job training, job prospects etc… etc… etc… Giving blood to the Red Cross gets you a pat on the back (and if you’re accepted as a donor, confirmation that you don’t have an STD, but the Red Cross literature says explicitly that you should not donate blood just to get tested).
@Lawman If he genuinely and reasonably believed that Dols was going to strike him right then, however so softly, it’s assault.
@The Red Cross does not provide services, remuneration, rights or anything to the donor. It should be allowed to RECEIVE blood in whatever way it wants. If it did not GIVE blood to certain individuals or groups, THAT would be unacceptable.
@ROTC should be allowed to RECEIVE candidates any way it ways too. I’m unsure of your argument here. People volunteer to give blood. People volunteer to serve in the military too, no?
@Serious Question I have no take on the ROTC issue. I’m not gay (though I support gay rights) and I’m not interested in the military. I just don’t care about the issue.
My question is this:
If Columbia doesn’t let the ROTC on campus because they don’t accept gay participants, then why does Columbia allow blood drives on campus, even though the Red Cross explicitly bans gay men from donating?
@because the Red Cross saves lives but all the military does is kill baby bears and innocent Tajikistani children
@and also the red cross does not ban homosexuals as a moral judgment on their character, it bans men who have sex with men because of the (10 years ago) very real threat of contracting the AIDS virus from that population. this is no longer the case as we know much more about HIV/AIDS & the virus is somewhat contained in the US–thus, people have recently started demanding the Red Cross lift the ban.
@No... your statement says Columbia’s policies and regulations don’t apply to an organisation’s -actions- are; all cover are the CU administration’s perception of an organisation’s -intentions-.
simple yes or no question. does the red cross violate CU’s non-discrimination policy? yes? therefore, blood drives should be banned on campus.
@and and also Why does columbia allow the catholics to celebrate daily mass despite their obvious discrimination against homosexuals on moral grounds?
@First of all... The only mention I’ve heard of “dumb spic” is from an anonymous poster here on BWOG. Let’s not put words in Matt’s mouth.
If Matt feels marginalized and like a second class citizen because of his service, you are just proving his point on this commentary board by saying he doesn’t have a right to express his views. If he criticizes the school, it’s against columbia but self-serving. No matter that detracting from Columbia’s image works AGAINST him as an eventual holder of a Columbia degree. When he is level-headed in his criticism, stating that it was an isolated incident, that’s another excuse of yours to say he should never be able to speak in the first place.
Also, it’s not “changing your story” to go from unspecified racial remarks to detailing what those remarks were.
Matt has been working with the administration for months to resolve this dispute. When it was arbitrated, the admin refused to tell him what punishment had been laid out, and he was taunted by the perpetrators with how they had gotten away with it.
As for physical intimidation, no one wants to be put in a situation where violence may come into play. While it was doubtful wehter Dols could have hurt Sanchez, it seems clear he was worried that she was going to try to.
Methinks this crowd doth protest too much.
@changing the story If it’s not in the official complaint, then anything he says differently sounds like changing the story to me.
@Any relation to The ‘Dirty’ Sanchez?
@Sanchez is not doing this for personal attention. He was at the front of the failed campaign to bring ROTC back to campus.
This is probably a new tactic in that campaign after they lost the Senate vote in the spring of ’05.
There’s no evidence the ISO doesn’t like “vets” on campus. It’s recruiters they have a problem with.
Also, Mark Xue who backs Sanchez up in that Spec article was one of the organizers of the anti affirmative action baksesale a few years ago.
@Ooh more info! The official complaint does not include any mention of any ISO members using the word “spic.” I am sure that if such a word had been used, Sanchez would have included it in his official complaint statement.
@David The original Spec article that the Bwog links is, by the way, one of the worst they’ve ever printed. It’s got this whole heroic presentation of Sanchez with the picture and the title, it fails to include “alleged” in a bunch of places where basic journalistic ethics would require that, and worse it doesn’t even mention that Zach and Monique denied Sanchez’ version of the events, although the reporter interviewed them both at length.
(I’m told the Spec now acknowledges the problems and that the article’s been used as an example of what not to do. Obviously, damage done, though…)
@David ISO members definitely did not call Matt Sanchez a “dumb spic”. His story has changed repeatedly. First it was an unspecified “racial slur” from now-graduated ISO member Zach Zill. Next, it became that Zach said the Army was racist; Matt said as a Latino he hadn’t seen that; Zach replied “that’s because you’re stupid.” Now, apparently Zach called him a “dumb spic.”
If Matt can’t get his story straight he has zero credibility. Zach, on the other hand, has consistently denied all three versions, and also has a consistent record of anti-racism. The administration investigated Matt’s charges back when they were made and cleared the ISO. (An original charge also included that Monique Dols had knocked over the ROTC table and physically intimidated Matt. She’s about 5′ and he’s about 6′ 6”.)
The whole thing is just a smear in retaliation for the ISO’s involvement in a successful campaign to stop the return of ROTC which Sanchez and a number of other ex-military students had pushed, which Sanchez apparently took personally.
@Haha Having met both Matt and Monique, it is pretty tough to imagine any physical intimidation.
That said, does anybody have a source that isn’t a year old for ANY of these claims? On either side? This is one of those things where I find it hard to believe Matt’s story, but I’m not inclined to just throw it out. As the Spec plays it, there’s nothing racially charged about it, even in his account– it’s just a non-story.
AAARRGH.
@Anonymous 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.
@Anonymous since when are military veterans treated like second class citizens at CU? As everyone has said, the ISO allegedly doing anything is not even close to indicative of the university as a whole. How come the fact police don’t come clamoring out when charges like “vets are second class citizens” are made? I’d honestly like to know why he feels like a second class citizen. Do we need to put yellow ribbon bumper stickers on our backpacks?
@theory Could it be possible that Fox news invited him on in exchange for some money? I wouldn’t put that past them (and everyone likes money, anyway).
@Me1 “I’ll bet my very existence that Matt’s not doing this to promote racial sensitivity or combat intolerance, but to narcissistically generate negative press for Columbia and positive press for himself.”
-Very true. When asked whether he was sharing his story in an effort to resolve a problem or improve the campus atmosphere, he said no. He also felt that this was more of an isolated incident than a systematic occurrence at Columbia. It was quite obvious that he was not sharing his story out of a desire to redress a problem, but out of a desire for personal attention.
@CML This is ludicrous. Being casually insulted – even in a racial fashion – is something that has happened, and will continue to happen, to all of us. It certainly reflects poorly on the character of the insulter and sucks for the insulted, but didn’t running to mommy or the principal’s office – especially one year ex post facto – go out of vogue sometime around sixth grade? I’ll bet my very existence that Matt’s not doing this to promote racial sensitivity or combat intolerance, but to narcissistically generate negative press for Columbia and positive press for himself. It’s completely different than the Ruggles incident.
@The Dink the socialist group that is NOT recognized are the spartacus people. i think most of them arent even affiliated with columbia, just annoying wackjobs who get all up in yo grill on college walk and follow you to class
@... ISO is not recognized and funded by the Columbia administration. It is funded by students. And the incident in question has been through proper review by the administration. Lastly, Mr. Sanchez is well aware what he is doing. He likes attention. But all and all, his affect is null considering he is quite willing to dish out criticism and hyperbole.
@the iso is an abc club
@abc clubs are not funded by administration. all clubs are funded by students.
@Columbian How was Kulawik the first to cover this breaking story? He’s not like… a media organization?
@He has like…a column in the Spec?
@yeah he wrote about it in the spec… last semester
@Kulawik was the first to cover it.
@Avi Zenilman http://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/spring2006/plotz.html
@Me1 When asked what he wanted the Columbia administration to do as a response to the incident, Matt Sanchez basically said that he didn’t really want the admin to do anything about it. So it doesn’t make much sense to complain about a lack of consequences…
@good for matt harp on matt all you want bwog, for going somewhere where someone will acknowledge this was wrong. and it did happen. For those of you who weren’t there, and know neither of the parties involved, it seems a little foolish to so ardently proclaim this an outright lie.
But so, yea, this is a year old issue. Thats the sad part. because there have been NO CONSEQUENCES.
So Bwog, how about you either a) make your reporting non partisan, or b) join the same sort of boat you so demeaningly put FOX in.
@bwog expressly stated it was for sharing such stories, but it was surprised that fox didn’t have somewhat more…timely content for yesterday’s broadcast. preempting all sorts of news for a year-old little incident at columbia (while all kinds of crazy shit at other schools get scant attention) does strike one as an obsession- a bit. whether they actually believe columbia is the paragon of outrageous leftist behavior on american university campuses or simply single it out conveniently because it’s in new york and their cameras are too (does nothing ever happen at NYU? fordham? cuny? cooper union? yeshiva? the new school? and those are just in manhattan…), the superfluity of columbia coverage strikes one as a little ridiculous.
@Columbian The ISO is very opposed to racism. Their president is a member of SHOCC.
@the iso people called matt sanchez a “dumb spic” the same way that banner said “the holocaust did not happen.”
@Sensationalism Fox is just imputing the moronic actions of a few extremists to the entire campus again. We had two former marines from GS in SigEp and they were both awesome guys and extremely well-respected. Sanchez should feel embarrassed for going on Fox and bad-mouthing his school because he got yelled at. Also, it doesn’t excuse the actions of the person(s) who shouted at him, but military recruiters spout a lot of B.S. when soliciting new members and they use a lot of bullying tactics to reign you in.
@Anonymous What makes you think Columbia is above reproach? Columbia should be embarrassed for allowing groups like the ISO to make them look like morons.
@i doubt the ISO called him a ‘dumb spic.’
they may be ridiculous, but they’re generally pretty consistant with their politics, and racism isn’t part of that.
@But come on to say that vets are second class citizens at Columbia is ridiculous. A few insane Socialists does not equal the collective feeling of an entire campus.
@facts The ISO is recognized, funded, and supported by the Columbia administration. ROTC is not.
@but the ISO is also recognized as ridiculous, annoying, and pathetic. ROTC is not.
@facts Ridiculous, annoying, and pathetic organizations get funding and support from Columbia administration while an organization dedicated to training America’s military and civilian leaders does not.
@sll Just to get facts straight.ROTC doesn’t get funding because of their stance on gays in the military. Take that to mean what you will.
@Blurring A university’s stance on ROTC has nothing to do with how it treats veterans. I think if you asked Columbia how they felt about Mr. Sanchez’s service, nearly every person would be proud of his work. And let’s be honest, if you were truly treated as a second class citizen by an entire community, wouldn’t you just transfer? I think we can agree that he’s enjoyed the attention he’s been able to garner from the ISO and various media outlets.
@Uh... “nearly every student”. Pardon my jaded editorial laugh, ha ha ha ha ha.
@haha “training civilian leaders”
@facts 1. The ISO members called Matt Sanchez a “dumb spic”.
2. The above is a “racial slur” and therefore a “hate crime”.
3. Not too different from the Ruggles swastika-sprayers, if you ask me.
4. The Ruggles swastika-sprayers got off with a slap on the wrist. The ISO goons got off with… nothing?
5. Stand, Columbia, Alma Mater, thro’ the storms of time abide!
@Fact-Checker In order for something to qualify as a hate crime, it must actually be a crime. Merely being hateful is not enough. Racial slurs on their own, no matter how offensive they might be, don’t qualify.
I’m certainly not trying to defend the use of racial slurs. But to call making them a hate crime is a wild mischaracterization.