21 Comments
Strike on Low at 12pm. Some profs cancel class to allow students to exercise consciences, won’t be disciplined
Steal this edition! anti-war movements –> more war –> more death ahh!!!
And then there’s that whole divestment thing
Note: Eye is M.I.A., ‘poke will be up later. -JDC
Loading …
21 Comments
@Schuess If no one else will do it: thank you, Bwog, for the Talking Heads reference. Ya’ll rock.
@Eric Chen I wrote When Anti-war is Anti-peace for the Spectator. I’m a member of MilVets.
@Sprinkles So the Spectator’s comment about MilVets not being allowed to express their opinions was factually incorrect?
@Lydia Strike coverage coming soon! If anyone wants to tell us about or send us photos from the teach-in, that’d be welcome too.
@Elna Hey Bwog…will you be offering coverage of the strike soon?
@meh i see no reason to…
weakest war protest EVER.
EVER.
They had to pull the Butler fire alarm because no one was showing up to their little bitch fest… but people just stood in front of Butler anyway instead of walking 200 feet and listening to the dirty hippies…
@more fire alarms were pulled in Hamilton and Lerner. Hooray for felonies!
@H8r The GS column seems completely out of place and retarded, as usual.
@This is why they don’t want soldiers speaking out politically while in uniform…
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/pic072.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php%3Fpage%3D20040216191225363&h=1426&w=1020&sz=151&hl=en&start=13&tbnid=yK_W4y9qy6T5gM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3DDewey%2BCanyon%2BIII%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
@umm how come no liveblogging of the war strike!
@eye is back up
@Sprinkles Whoa, whoa, I read this:
“Members of the Columbia Military Veterans and other members of the military are not technically allowed to express opinions on the war”
Is there anything less American than gagging people’s opinions? WTF?
@Think about it Soldiers, as soldiers, are prohibited from expressing their opinion on policy matters. However, as citizens they can express their opinion on policy matters. Thus, a soldier could go to an anti-war rally or a pro-surge rally as long as he/she is not in uniform and does not voice their opinion AS a soldier.
For example, I could say “I think the surge is a terrible idea, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war and I think we should just let them slaughter each other.” However, I could not say “As a soldier I have a higher level of knowledge about policy matters in Iraq and thus I think the surge is a good idea.”
Also, soldiers are technically barred from discussing matters of religion or politics while in uniform, even informally.
Why? Well, I think if you look around the world you’ll see the problems fostered by a politicized military–Turkey, Thailand, Nigeria, etc–I think its the right policy to keep soldiers from taking positions on policy matters. As citizens and voters they should of course express their opinion, but a politicized military is dangerous.
@Sprinkles Well, that makes sense, but the way the Spec reports it, it sounds as if even thought members of Columbia MilVets are in civilian capacities as students, they are still not allowed to speak their minds.
@military family I hail from a military family with several members currently in Iraq/Afghanistan. There are reasons why soldiers (particularly officers) are not to speak in an official role on matters of policy. Think of a company/university/institution having official spokesmen so that 50 different “official” stances aren’t being relayed. However, this does not mean that my family members do not have very strong feelings about such issues, and they voice these feelings under the correct circumstances.
@sorry i understand your point about current service members, but the quote refers to the columbia military veterans. aren’t veterans allowed to speak their minds?
@military family Even active soldiers are free to protest as long as they are not in uniform… although it is a hazy line. As for military veterans… They should not be protesting in uniform. I think what they mean is that no soldier is to express opinions on policy in the capacity of a military representative (which the uniform generally represents). Sometimes vets are members of the IRR so they are not technically complete with their duty which makes the line hazy again.
the long short of it all… all citizens have the right to free speech. If a member of the military chooses to celebrate such rights, they should do so in the capacity of a citizen, not as a military member.
my $.02
@spec correction in other words, “we got the entire article wrong.” also, miscontextualized? not a word.
In the article “SGB Move Upsets GSSC Leaders,” (Feb. 14) a quote from Student Governing
Board treasurer Jonathan Siegel was miscontextualized. When he said “It will maintain its autonomy,”
he was referring to SGB and not to General Studies. The same article also misstated that
SGB is moving to within the purview of Student Development and Activities. In fact, it is moving
to within Student Affairs. This error lead to Jessie Leiken’s words being taken out of context. She
said she was happy so far with SGB’s work with Student Affairs, not the SDA. The article also incorrectly
stated that University Senator from General Studies Chris Riano said that it was “unheard of”
for Columbia not to have an office for student affairs when, in fact, they do have such an office.
@bud While you are probably right about the Siegel quote. SDA is under Student Affairs. In this case it is interchangeable and therefore you just wasted 10 minutes of your life.
@Anonymous SDA is one sub-division of the Division of Student Affairs. Other sub-divisions include Residential Life Programming and the Office of Multicultural Affairs. The SGB will be housed in a newly constructed subdivision that is not SDA. They are not interchangeable terms.
@CoreX The spec is riddled with errors today.