Nov

24

197 Comments

  1. BC 2011  

    No.

    I'm gay, so it'd be cool if I weren't discriminated against.

    • hmmm  

      so let's kick the blood drive off campus too

      • BC 2011 again  

        well, actually I'm a lesbian, so I don't have a beef against blood drives. Although I still can't donate because of other medical reasons. But I ALSO am against blood drives being held on campus IF they are going to discriminate against gay men (which they do) and receive university funding as well as providing academic credit and money to those who participate.

        • response  

          if you are to be consistent, then, you should reject the policy that let's students get credit for ROTC programs elsewhere.

          either way, this is not about giving credit, it's about allowing on campus, that's what the issue is.

  2. CC '12  

    No. Gay pacifist...

  3. CC '11  

    Barack Obama.

    YES WE CAN

  4. cc 09  

    no, rotc officers can only FOLLOW orders, not elicit "change." we should be working to stop us aggression overseas and at home rather than abetting and joining (for elective credit) the same group of people who have (and will in the future) put down public protest and academic debate on this campus/city. read your history, people were getting beat up to get rotc off of college campuses for ethical and civil rights purposes just 40 years ago, now we're blindly allowing it back on campus with 2 days of debate and inflated rhetoric. read up before you vote.

    • CC '10  

      YES,
      because of people like #8

      A civilian controlled military is essential to the security of our government. Can you image what a mess we would be in if President Obama ordered his joint-chiefs to do something and the response was "Well actually, we'd rather..." This is the normal state of affairs in many unstable regimes. I hardly think we want to follow their examples.

      I have read my history. It tells me that since before this nation's founding, the military has played a vital role in defending freedom. The military hardly has a perfect track record, but neither does our government as a whole.

  5. CC '10

    No
    There hasn't been a good argument yet about why this isn't discriminating against homosexuals.

    • SEAS 10  

      Yes. There hasn't been a convincing argument why they shouldn't be allowed and the ones there have been have essentially boiled down to not liking the military. If you don't want to be discriminated against, nobody's forcing you to join the ROTC.

      Both Obama and McCain favored bringing ROTC back on campus and it was pretty stunning to see the double standard Columbia students applied to their statements as well.

  6. CC '09  

    No

    I agree with #9.

  7. NO!  

    no no no. actually, only once.

  8. cc12  

    no.

    aside from the whole fact that it's insanely discriminatory, the military in any incarnation has absolutely no place at an academic institution. however it manifests itself, it should not be allowed on our campus.

  9. CC'06

    can someone explain this survey to me? is it supposed to be confined to current students only? because when I clicked on the link it offered me the choice of voting.

  10. cc '10  

    no. we don't need to teach warfare at this school, or anywhere.

  11. CC '10  

    Also YES and also because of people like #8

    If it weren't for the brave men and women who fight and risk their lives every single day for democracy, people like you wouldn't be ALLOWED to protest or debate. Maybe YOU should read your history.

  12. CC '12  

    No.

    The military needs serious policy overhauls by Congress/DOD to not only get rid of DADT but also to bring the Uniform Code of Military Justice more in line with today's legal system. Implementation is a whole other issue, too. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/us/23abuse.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp .

  13. seas'10  

    No, I high school we got harassed by recruiters and now I dont pay 50,000 dollars a year to be bothered to go sign up to get killed. If i wanted to sign up I would - let people decide that on their own

  14. CC '12  

    While I appreciate and support the troops themselves -- whole heartedly -- I agree with those who believe that warfare has no place in an academic institution.

    And so: NO

  15. CC '07

    If you kick the blood drive off campus then people die, if you don't allow ROTC on campus, we uphold the principle of non-discrimination against gay Americans and ROTC students have to commute a little bit.

    Also this entire vote should be thrown out. First, because anyone can do it regardless of whether they have a Columbia IDcode. Second, because there shouldn't be vote of the majority on the rights of minorities

    • aaa  

      'Also this entire vote should be thrown out. First, because anyone can do it regardless of whether they have a Columbia IDcode. Second, because there shouldn't be vote of the majority on the rights of minorities'

      Unfortunately, that's how it IS, regardless of whether you like it or not. I oppose bringing ROTC back to campus (and I believe for the same reasons you do), but I will point out that that's how the civil rights movement worked - the majority eventually came around and stood up for the minority.


      What that means in this case is that the majority has to be that much more careful to stick up for those who, by themselves, cannot defend themselves (if only by sheer numbers).

  16. CC'12

    Yes. God Bless America

  17. BC'10  

    YES

    People should have an outlet to do whatever they want while at school. Many students, including myself, would have jumped on the opportunity to have their education paid for and get a chance to serve.

  18. CC '09  

    Yes, while I'm am very supportive of the gay rights movement and gay marriage, I feel that fighting to force ROTC off campus because of it's discrimination is not what the fight should be about. There has been little focus on actually changing the DADT policy.

  19. CC'11  

    Yes.

    Because the military is a necessary institution. Because the military is a flawed institution.

    Because I recognize that the military is in fact comprised of individuals. Because over the past several weeks, I have talked to soldiers: women soldiers, soldiers of color, gay soldiers. Because I have heard their stories, and because I know that the military is not static. Because I do not want Columbia to stand by and wait for others to turn the military into a perfect institution. Because I hold myself accountable for the state of the military today. Because I believe that change—though it takes time—is possible.

  20. CC'09  

    No.

    No coherent argument made by the pro-camp yet.

  21. SEAS '09  

    The issue is not all of ROTC... it is NROTC because there is no school that has a program in the area. They cannot commute somewhere else to do it.

  22. CC 09  

    YES.

    I'm gay and I also lie to donate blood. I'm willing to sacrifice my pride if it means increasing the possibility of saving lives.

  23. bc 12  

    i voted yes because i believe that rotc students deserve an amazing(free!!) chance at a great, valuable education in return for their service and sacrifice.

  24. BC '09  

    No

    DADT is a deal breaker for me, despite whatever anybody else says.

  25. CC'10  

    Yes:
    This nation's defense should not be a burden for the poor and under-served alone. The military did not create DADT, although they are the chief antagonists against civil liberties, Congress did. Mandate equality the way the forces were integrated in the 50s. Knowing men and women in uniform, I imagine they would find the comments of post 8 insulting--many people where I come from really don't have other viable options other than the joining the military and have other less pithy concerns at stake when they join. DADT is the problem, the military is not.

  26. CC '12  

    Yes, because the school's policy that NROTC violates is illogical. You cannot equate a birth trait (like race, sex, etc.) with a behavioral choice. You can argue that homosexual desires are not a choice, but acting on them still is. You can also argue that a homosexual orientation is a birth trait, and (though science has yet to give us any reason to believe that) it's pretty irrelevant because to act upon those desires is still a choice and thus is not equal to race or sex.

    Heterosexual and homosexual are not equal. That is NOT AT ALL to suggest that heterosexuals are better or more dignified than homosexuals, but is simply to state that homosexual acts are disordered and that there is nothing wrong with the NROTC discriminating in this way and limiting the openness of those with homosexual desires in their program.

    Blind unequal treatment of equals in unust, but so is blind equal treatment of unequals. Columbia has either yet to realize this fact or cannot see the inherent difference between heterosexual and homosexual.

    So, in short, YES!!!!

  27. CC 09  

    YES.

    Does DADT discriminate against LBGTQ students? Yes. However, we hope to HELP change the policy from within. I admire most highly the efforts of gay veterans at Columbia like Justin Johnson and Scott Stewart, who support the return of NROTC.

    When Truman decreed to desegregate the armed forces, the change in policy didn't have a significant effect until the Korean War, when because of the needs of the military, more reluctant officers were forced to put their bigotries on the backburner.

    Similarly, we can talk as much as we'd like about the policy of DADT and its abolition. However, repealing DADT, like Truman's decision to desegregate the military, will be meaningless if the military doesn't already have progressive minds open to such a change.

    Be the change.

  28. Anonymous  

    Yes.
    I thought for a while about this decision, and I'm still not sure how I feel about this, mostly because of DADT. Still, I voted yes because I do not think that it should be a necessity for the military to spend so much time recruiting from this country's poor. The ROTC spent time on my high school campus (they never hassled or harassed anybody and were always respectful). They presented themselves as an option for the students who could not go to college straight away, either because of financial or academic reasons. While I appreciate that the military does provide tuition help for veterans, creating a viable option for people who are ABLE to attend school after returning safely from overseas, I do not think it is right for us to view the military solely as an institution for those with no other option. Joining the military is a HUGE sacrifice, and especially at this time, very dangerous. Many of the young men and women who join the military do so not only because they wish to defend their country, but because they really see it as their only option. Maybe if more "elites" would think about the military, the government wouldn't have to bribe poor people into risking their lives.

  29. CC11  

    No

    ROTC is still available to those who want it through City College, but because it still discriminates against homosexuals it has no place on our campus.

  30. CC'10

    No. I'm all for gay rights, but that has nothing to do with my "no" vote. I'm in fact voting no because militarism in this country is out of control.

    Our foreign policy is not in its current mess because we don't have rich kids in the military. It's the way it is because of horrid political leadership. Ditch the Army, join the Peace Core.

    • CC 10  

      yes!

      where do you think horrible political leadership comes from? perhaps because we've separated academic and military worlds to the point where they're mutually exclusive?

      i don't our foreign policy will get any better by just further alienating the military it from my world.

      pacifism rocks, but the military will exist no matter what. why not make it the best possible military?

      • Reply

        "pacifism rocks, but the military will exist no matter what. why not make it the best possible military?"

        I am actually not a pacifist. I support going to war when we the people have decided this is the right move. Over the past eight years, civilian military leaders have tried to hijack the debate.

        So right now, the best possible military is one that has less influence over civilian affairs. There are some problems you can not bomb away (or otherwise "counter-insurge" away). They need political solutions, and the military's undue influence on civilian political debate prevents us from finding these solutions.

  31. CC '11  

    No, because people like #40 don't need any more justification for their overwhelming ignorance and bigotry.

    And I'm not gay, for the record. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

  32. CC 12  

    Yes, because it offers a way to begin changing military policy that further ignoring the issue does not.

  33. CC '09  

    No. Get rid of DADT first and I will gladly change my vote.

    Also, while we're talking about this survey, I'm wondering if it isn't antidemocratic. The way I parse the email, it sounds as if the SEAS, CC and GS University Senators will be bound as a group to vote according to the survey result. If this is the case, it means that all 6 of them (there are 6, right?) would vote for the winning side, even if the issue were split 51/49.

    It seems unfair that as a CC student my vote should have any binding effect upon the GS or SEAS senators. After all, CC students get three senators while GS students only have one. And as much as my vote is informed by my own politics and interests, I know that an engineer, veteran, or non-traditional student might have a very different opinion on the issue. Why should I or my CC classmates have any say in how GS's sole senator votes? Similarly, why should the GS student body have any influence in the vote of the CC senate caucus?

    Can anyone clarify for me how this agreement was arranged?

    -XJE

    • Senator  

      The Votes will be parsed down by UNI and the associated school affiliation. We'll know which schools voted for which position.

      Take CC for example: if 33% vote yes then at least 1 senator will have to vote yes. if 66% then at least 2 senators will have to vote yes.

      SEAS is a lot easier: if 50% vote yes then at least one senator has to vote yes

      BC and GS are the easiest: they have to vote with the majority.

      Do make sure that your senators work together to do the right thing and represent you in their votes.

      There is gray are though - if CC votes 65% in favor then only 1 senator is still required to vote yes, one is required to vote no but the other really has an option of following his / her gut.

  34. well  

    I would have voted yes if the pro-camp had been bold enough to argue that allowing ROTC/NROTC would be making an exception to University policy and accepting DADT's discrimination. No one acknowledged that. Also, no one argued coherently for how everybody engaging the ROTC and changing from within would be more effective than everyone boycotting it - it seems to me the military would repeal DADT in a heartbeat if every University boycotted.

    So I voted no, but I am a repeat commenter, so Bwog, ignore.

  35. ...and furthermore  

    Do the BREAKING NEWS flyers that have popped up strike anyone else as illogical? Obama won't tackle DADT until 2010 at the earliest...so we don't need to either? What? As great a person as Barack is, he's not the divining rod of social activism.

  36. CC '10  

    No.

    Nothing about not having ROTC on campus should dissuade the lauded "elites" from joining the military. It's true, it should not be an institution that runs on the backs and blood of those for whom there is no other option. But if it takes a scholarship for the "elites" to consider the military as one of theirs we should perhaps rethink the categorization.

    The two arguments I've heard from the pro-ROTC camp go like this: (1) we should fight to change the military from within, but (2) the military is full of wonderful people who have no control at all over DADT.

    I don't think we can continue to blame Bill Clinton for DADT, unless he is somehow still in charge of the executive branch and I just don't know about it. Likewise, if the military doesn't control the military, how can on-campus ROTC help anything? Oh yeah, "be the change." Right.

  37. CC '11  

    Yes, because it's nonsense to think that a federal repeal of DADT alone will make everyone in the military accepting of homosexuals. There are rules and then there are people (i.e. officers) who enforce the rules. Good luck trying to get the military to do what you want after shunning it for so long. And also, the con side of Wednesday's debate was deplorable.

  38. More gray area  

    If CC votes 34% the third senator will also have a choice of a position to take. Also, because more than 1% apparently voted yes theoretically then 1 CC senator has the ability to vote yes if she wants (and yes they are all female so the article is correct).

    My bets are the following:

    GS - Yes
    BC - No
    CC1 - No
    CC2 - No
    CC3 - Yes
    SEAS1 - Yes
    SEAS2 - No

    Based off that result I doubt the grad schools will hear the arguments and the issue will die at the student affairs Caucuas

  39. CC ' 09  

    The easiest question I've ever been asked at Columbia. NO.

  40. SEAS '09  

    No.

    To assume that only the military fights for our freedoms is narrow-minded. Dissent and progress is equally important. The fact is, DADT is terribly discriminatory. If the military wants a campus presence, it must be for the WHOLE campus. Open gays included. They're just as American.

  41. CC'12  

    No.


    'Change from the inside' doesn't apply - the 'inside' here means CONGRESS, not the military. Federal law requires congressional change, which means lawyers and politicians, not a bunch of Ivy-educated cadets.


    So, sorry, but that's a huge argument completely debunked.

    • 05 ROTC advocate

      Actually, it's both. Ultimately, it's up to Congress to initiate (or for POTUS, as head of his party, to push his majority party in Congress to initiate) and pass the legal reform, then for POTUS to sign off. So, boycotting ROTC isn't going to do anything. At the same time, it's naive to think that when the government takes on this issue, they won't do so without consulting the military and doing in-depth studies, so it behooves us to get as many of our people as we can get inside of the military institution. Third, the fact is, there are many gay soldiers in the military striving to serve honorably despite DADT. It matters who their leaders are, the same as it matters to all our soldiers who are affected by officers.

  42. Anonymous  

    Not sure that it counted every time, but I've voted "Yes" three times and "No" three times now. I think the school's poll is about as scientific as Bwog's.

  43. gay senior  

    Yes! Let's bring the military here and engage in dialogue.

  44. Anonymous  

    NO!

    Fought against it in the '70s, fighting against it in 2008. Not selling out, not tailoring my conscience to fit the fashions of the day.

  45. SEAS '12  

    NO

    (filler text, filler text, filler text)

  46. SEAS '09  

    Yes. I don't agree with DADT, but alienating the military is not the answer.

  47. CC 10  

    YES!!!
    Fight the system from within, instead of whining and then not doing anything

  48. cc 11  

    yes

    i don't agree with dadt either but it seems hypocritical to block nrotc for this admittedly homophobic policy and at the same time, tolerate the various campus religious groups that represent doctrines that have demonstrated hostility towards homosexuality in the past

    • CC 10  

      No.

      And in response to comment 81 I cannot count the number of times on bwog and elsewhere that this argument has been called out for the fallacy that it is- religious groups are NOT state employers who are supported by federal funds. DADT is statutory discrimination at its finest.

      And why would you vote in favor of NRTOC if you disagree with the university's tolerance of both organizational entities? If you think the university would be hypocritical in its differential treatment of both, why not vote against NROTC and fight against those groups that you describe as representing "doctrines that have demonstrated hostility towards homosexuality in the past"? Take the initiative and enact the reform you want to see.

  49. cc 10

    No.

    I cannot believe how many people voted yes. you never know who you are hurting. by saying yes to ROTC, you are telling me that i need to hide my identity, that being gay is something that i am not allowed to be proud about. and for that i can't forgive you, ignorant fucks.

    • Yes....

      No I'm not. That's completely absurd. I'm telling the military that I support them and that they deserve a place on this campus as much as you or anyone else does if they want one. You have plenty of places and opportunities on this campus to openly express your sexual orientation, and expressing gratitude to our military would not deny you any of them. And, in anticipation of any accusation that I would conscience supporting the invitation of a blatantly bigoted organization to the campus, the answer is a flat out no. But there are reasons why the military opposes having homosexuals in its ranks, and while I don't agree with them, I think those reasons are plain to anyone. And I think it's plain to almost anyone that the anti-ROTC sentiment on this campus is not fueled and perpetuated by the don't ask don't tell issue at all, in any case, as several commenters all but admitted on a previous post. It strains credulity to believe that the reason why the University that was famously beseiged with draft riots in the Vietnam era is averse to inviting the military back simply because more people are not allowed to join.

      • Openly gay

        Openly gay CUers can be openly gay in and around Columbia NROTC. Openly gay students can participate in CU NROTC and, if NROTC is hiring civilians, work in the NROTC office. DADT would only apply to a student under a very limited set of conditions, and that's something Columbia should help with.

        Some people seem to think NROTC would create some kind of homophobia-permissive zone on campus, and that's simply not the case.

  50. CC '10  

    Yes. Just like gay people tell straight people, "if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one." Same to gay people, "if you don't like NROTC, don't join." No one is forcing you into this. Instead, the option is there for those students who wish to join

    • Umm...

      "Just like gay people tell straight people, "if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get one." Same to gay people, "if you don't like NROTC, don't join.""

      But isn't that the whole issue, that openly gay people aren't allowed to join NROTC? I think that you are missing the whole point of why DADT is so damaging to everyone (the military included). Gay people are not welcome in NROTC, nor in the institution of marriage. The correct analogy would be that straight people say, "If you aren't heterosexual, then you can't get married. If you aren't heterosexual, you aren't welcome in NROTC."

    • CC '12  

      The difference is, even if LGBTQ people want to join NROTC, they can't.

      And no. NROTC should never come to our campus.

  51. Alum08

    Interesting to see the number of "Yes"es in this exit poll. Also glad to see someone explain how the senators have to work this.

    What will be interesting to see is how this will go in the Student Affairs Caucus, but I actually think this vote will be brought to the Plenary - THAT will make things more interesting since, well, a bunch of the pro-NROTC professors are in the USenate...

    And a-here, we go!

  52. Yes!  

    I voted YES after a lot of careful consideration.

    1) DADT is wrong, and needs to be changed. I think the way to do that is to have Columbia students in the military demonstrating a need for reform while we lobby Congress and Obama to change this horribly discriminatory policy. Yes, this would be an exception to the Columbia non-discrimination policy, but it is one that can produce less discrimination in the future and allows for more diversity on campus.

    2) I want my military, or at least the one that represents me both here and abroad, to be representative of my values - which I think Columbia in many ways represent. I want military leaders that have my education so that these policies don't ever happen again.

    3) Columbia students can impact the military. What happens when schools like Columbia don't allow ROTC on campus? the Department of Defense establishes programs in places that are more favorable towards the military - which are often conservative areas as well. As a result, the military becomes dominated by people hailing from these conservative districts. Let's get more liberals into the military.

    4) Recruitment and the way the Military pursues it is a problem, but we can address it by having ROTC on our campus. We should advocate for different practices, but we should also have more students from areas where the military does not traditionally recruit entering the military. ROTC and the military does provide an option for lower-income classes, but it should in no way be their only option. We need to change these recruiting practices, AND provide more programs and means for people from lower-income areas to have access to the same education that we are enjoying on our campus.

    5) We need more academic debate on this campus, and the military voices can provide insight to a different segment of society. I came to Columbia because I was primed for intense academic and political debate, and I want every voice to be able to speak. That includes a military voice, a LGBTQ voice, or and anti-militaristic voice. We should allow complete debate and consider all sides of it. This means incorporating every view on our campus.

    This is why I voted YES. I would encourages those who are deciding to continue to explore the debates and to make your own decision. In the end I would love it if you would vote yes, but in the end just vote.

  53. CC '11  

    Yes. And thank God this is almost over, I'm tired of the flyer war that's going on.

  54. Yes! again  

    Please excuse some of my grammatical errors. I admittedly forgot to proofread.

  55. cc '12  

    i voted no.
    if given the chance, i would vote no again. times a thousand.

  56. SEAS '09  

    Made the nay vote.

  57. cc '10  

    nope. we can take a stand not only against discrimination, but we can also take a stand against the military-industrial complex, neo-colonial practices, and other such radical leftist banter that this school prides itself.

  58. Democrat Republican  

    why should senators be bound by a poll that is so obviously flawed in so many ways? Statistically insignificant, poorly executed, and unrepresentative of the nuance behind the issue, this poll should not trump the informed decisions of our elected representatives.

    If indeed the current student body's opinion carries any weight and the representative function of senator means anything at all, the senators should each vote their conscience. This survey is a charade.

  59. BC '10  

    NO.

    DADT aside, people seem to have forgotten that the military is overseas right now fighting in 2 wars that have killed thousands of innocent people, both American and "other".

    That, to me, is murder. And based on the simple fact that war and the US military represents murder to thousands of people around this world (not just Iraq or Afghanistan when considering the HISTORY of the US military) I cannot bring myself to invite the them to our campus. call me a bleeding-heart, peace loving, birkenstock wearing, granola-eating hippy if you want, but until i hear a valid argument against that simple fact, my vote will remain NO.

    • try this argument

      the military's foreign policy is defined by politicians who answer to American interests. That certainly doesn't make the war right, but don't blame the military for the decisions of elected representatives.

      • How about this one:  

        I think the idea of banning ROTC on campus is to put pressure on our elected representatives to revise discriminatory policies surrounding the military and war, no? For the same reasons Biden's and Clinton's votes for the Iraq war seem ridiculous now, it is naive to assume that by allowing ROTC back on campus we will somehow be in a position to affect change with regards to the DADT policy or US foreign policy in general.

  60. seas 09  

    YES

    Look, there are students here on scholarships from the Point Foundation which only gives money to LGBT students. If we allow them to come to Columbia, then we ought to let the NROTC, which is essentially a scholarship program, do the same.

  61. GS 09

    yes.

    DADT is clearly something that we have to change - perhaps by lobbying congress, who has say in the matter, to change it. Regardless of bad policies, though, we still need a military, and we need it to be the best it can, and to provide opportunities for students eligible to join to do so for whatever reason they choose. Columbia students can have an incredibly strong positive impact on the US military.

  62. CC'09  

    Yes.

    So all you rich white kids voting "no" because of DADT are okay with the 100000s of recruiting stations in harlem, brooklyn, the bronx? or is it that those recruiting stations are intended for black people, and LGBTQ issues are "upper class white" issues. BRING ROTC here to show your neighbors that you don't think you are superior.

  63. one other thing  

    it's quite ironic that the same people who are against manhattanville expansion are those voting against ROTC. you pretend you fight for harlem in the manhattanville debate, but then cant take the recruiters harlem has been dealing with for years.

  64. BC '09  

    YES

    (see post #85)

  65. CC '10  

    Voted yes. For more reasons than one, but the main being I think Columbia needs a bit more diversity of opinion. The mainstream Democratic views are not always the right views.

  66. GS 11  

    NO

    DADT sucks, we should not toss our own community principles out the window to accommodate it.

    Furthermore, making special exceptions for the military in civil society is a slippery slope that leads to nowhere good. (Gitmo anyone?)

    If they want a presence in civil society, they need to play by civilian rules. Unless we're under martial law, civil laws and policies are not subordinate to military policy and bureaucracy.

    That said, repeal DADT, and my vote changes to an emphatic YES.

    • Civilian rules

      "If they want a presence in civil society, they need to play by civilian rules. Unless we're under martial law, civil laws and policies are not subordinate to military policy and bureaucracy."

      DADT is a civilian law.

  67. CC '11  

    NO! I just figure people should stop shitting on the gays this year. Haven't they had enough?

  68. GS '11

    No.

    I don't think the military and academia belong this closely intertwined. There's nothing wrong with educated soldiers, but doing both at the same time lessens each.

  69. cc '10  

    no.

    pro-equality pacifist .

  70. SEAS '10  

    No. Regardless of how you feel on the issue, ROTC is very clearly not allowable under University policy, and just because you're all homophobes doesn't mean you should grant an exception to the program.

    If ROTC is allowed to come, I will report a bias incident every damn day to OMA or whatever it's called in an attempt to litter all your inboxes with reports of said bias incidents.

  71. Pissed  

    Fuck you, do not call me a homophobe. I voted "yes" so I am a homophobe?

  72. Pissed  

    That was in reply to #114

  73. CC'09  

    Yes. Nobody ever actively brought up or debated DADT around here until it NROTC was up for consideration. So if anything, it's reopening the discussion and getting people to think about it.

  74. CC'11

    Yes.

    Also...

    1. Supporting the military DOES NOT mean the same thing as supporting DADT.

    2. Not everybody joins the military because s/he has no other alternatives.

    3. The military does not make foreign policy, they simply execute the decisions made by politicians. Bush and Congress voted to invade Iraq, not the military.

  75. CC'10  

    Yes, for many reasons that have been stated already and because I don't think banning access to NROTC will do anything except cater to our self-satisfaction. If you don't like DADT, do something real about it. Banning it from campus is the equivalent of sweeping the problem under the rug.

  76. last line

    I meant to say, "is simply."

  77. CC '11  

    No, and it was a difficult decision. I support the troops, but I believe that allowing ROTC in its current form (with DADT), would send the wrong message and break the anti-discrimination regulations. Also,as a lesbian I would feel threatened by the presence of a military insitution. I was harassed by the ROTC recruiters in high school and had to listen to their anti-gay rhetoric regularly as they came into my classes to recruit. Now that I'm out, I don't want to hide anymore.

  78. SEAS 2010  

    No because ROTC doesn't affect international students. If they let immigrants to serve as soldiers/mercenaries in exchange for scholarship cash and citizenship, I'll vote yes and sign up in a millisecond.

    • non-SEAS

      You have to be kidding me. Are you really so moronic that something has to be in your direct financial interest for you to vote for it?

      • yeah idiot  

        I didn't need to rehash every other reason that was already stated beforehand to support my "No" vote. My tax money is going to the ROTC, which does not affect me and is just another government venue to waste money meant for social improvement. So unless it benefits me enough to change my mind, it's a waste of my money.

        I won't support an organization that actively discriminates. I might as well give my money to the KKK, less bureaucracy, just as good for killing innocents.

        And to everybody who thinks ROTC from Columbia can change the military, PrezBush can point (in the wrong direction) and say there are WMDs and the Columbia-Soldier chooses between dishonorable discharge (and no scholarship paycheck), resignation (and no scholarship paycheck), or brainless loyalty.

  79. barnard  

    girls are gonna ruin this for everyone by voting no!

  80. CC 10  

    Nope.

    Siding with the gays on this one. They've been shat on enough lately.
    Also a pacifist. Might not be practical in the real world but as far as this university bubble goes I'd like to keep it that way.

  81. CC 10  

    Yes.

    As someone whose father, like so many others servicemen, credits the Navy with getting him off of the not-so-great path he might have gone down, I am definitely biased in favor of the military. I had ROTC on my high school campus, and as someone above said, we were never harassed or bothered in any way. While DADT is definitely not cool, I still believe that people should have the opportunity to participate in NROTC while attending Columbia.

  82. CC '09  

    i think you should keep 2 things in mind
    1) whether a yes vote is tacitly suppressing homosexuals of their identities and discriminatory in the military,
    i.e. that having NROTC here somehow encourages this policy

    2) and whether it is hypocritical that we get federal defense money, support, and protection, yet [unlawfully] ban ROTC from campus

    YES

  83. SEAS '09  

    No,

    as I have not found a legitimate argument for voting yes. This is an organization that discriminates and we have a policy against allowing these types of organizations on campus. It doesn't matter what may or may not happen if someone gay joins or tries to join, the point is what could happen to that person due to current policy. Even if there are gay servicemen and women, if they become open about it they run the risk of being penalized and this just doesn't make sense.

    The “inviting NROTC here to try to change DADT” argument also does nothing for me since most of these people are also saying that the military did not create DADT and therefore couldn't change it. Should we be rallying Congress to change the current policy so we can let this fine institution back on our campus in good faith?

    Finally, you can participate in ROTC if you are at Columbia. This is and has always been an option, and I know people who have partaken in it. If students didn't have this choice then I would have a reason to reconsider.

    Take out DADT and I will gladly vote yes as I have nothing against the military, but until then sorry. Its all just a matter of common sense and rightly deserved equality.

  84. Barnard '11  

    Yes, because boycotts do nothing to change bad policies.

    Don't Ask Don't Tell is a federal law, which can only be overturned by Congress and the President. If you don't like, lobby Congress. Banning ROTC doesn't do anything except make it seem like Columbia is anti=military (which I think is untrue).

    • That is  

      the worst reasoning ever.

      "Yes, because boycotts do nothing to change bad policies"

      ummmm Rosa Parks and the bus boycott that marks the beginning of the civil rights movement didn't have anything to do with changing bad policies??

      • Boycott bad

        The flaw with your reasoning is that Columbia's "boycott" of ROTC started 40 years ago for anti-military reasons. That's what the world remembers. It's not as though ROTC returned and then Columbia banned ROTC because of DADT. For Columbia to excuse an older shameful policy with a convenient PC whitewash defies credulity and does a great disservice to sincere opponents of DADT because it paints the DADT reform movement with the same anti-military brush as the long-standing "boycott" of ROTC.

        Besides, in terms of numbers, the military doesn't need Columbia for officers. The military can get its officers at any number of smaller conservative colleges that are lining up to invite ROTC to their campus.

        Bottom-line: These small conservative colleges are taking away Columbia's voice while Columbia's current policy on ROTC makes us increasingly irrelevant in civil-military affairs.

        • yes...  

          but it is important to remember that columbia is not an anti-military institution... we give a lot of money to the military and the government via research... lest we forget that the atom bomb was created in pupin.

          to claim that the banning of ROTC on campus sends the message of anti-militarism is thinking of this in a very narrow way. instead, through the boycott of ROTC on campus we set an example among academic institutions to take action against discriminatory practices while we (the undergrad student body) simultaneously make a statement against the mixing of military and academia since we don't have much control over the research that our institution participates in. now i know many people may not agree ideologically with the second part of that statement, but it is something that should be noted.

          i agree, to make a stronger statement, it would be much better if this banning of ROTC based on the DADT policy were coupled with lobbying and other forms of action but to allow ROTC back on campus at a time like this we are not helping any movement toward change, rather we are accepting the role the military plays in our academic and personal lives

          • ROTC empowers CU

            "but it is important to remember that columbia is not an anti-military institution... we give a lot of money to the military and the government via research... lest we forget that the atom bomb was created in pupin."

            Your point ignores that the military is essentially a community of people and ROTC is the main source of leaders for those people. The fundamental purpose of ROTC is to maintain the bridge between civil society and our military, and educate the leaders of the military community in civilian academic institutions so that civilian values and connections are strengthened for an institution that can become isolated, as is the case with many other nations' militaries. ROTC is designed as a democratic safeguard that places a check on the military by giving the academy disproportionate influence in shaping the military's leadership - influence Columbia once had, but lost through some incredibly short-sighted decisions 4 decades ago.

            "but to allow ROTC back on campus at a time like this we are not helping any movement toward change, rather we are accepting the role the military plays in our academic and personal lives"

            Columbia's boycott of ROTC isn't an affirmative act that influences - it's a void that disenfranchises us. Columbia's position only makes us irrelevant. As with the civil rights movement, Columbia can make a difference only by engaging and participating. You call a vote for NROTC as "accepting the role the military plays in our lives" as though it's a passive act that weakens us. I strongly disagree. By inviting NROTC back to Columbia, we are taking ownership of our military and civil-military issues like DADT. That empowers Columbia. With NROTC, Columbia has the opportunity to make the leaders of the military. That is power.

  85. Vote Often CC 09  

    YES. Hopefully to counter at least one of you. There is a huge gulf between this campus and our peers who are fighting overseas, and there shouldn't be. We should be ashamed of ourselves if the ban stays. Let's at least give our peers in the military the option of coming here. Support the troops...vote YES.

  86. CC 09  

    If you want to end DADT, then do something productive about it. Go to your local representative or state senator and asked them to put DADT on the table. The source of the problem is DADT, not ROTC.

  87. SEAS 2010  

    YES.

    Someone shouldn't decide someone else's curriculum or decisions. Don't ask don't tell will be struck down in the Obama administration anyways.

  88. SEAS '12

    No. Like some other people stated, once DADT is reversed, I will gladly change my vote. I support our troops, and I believe it is important to allow students to take advantage of NROTC scholarships, but, as someone who has gay friends who commented that they would feel uncomfortable with DADT's return, I don't think NROTC, in it's current form, should be allowed back on campus.

    And, in regards to #40: I am quite disturbed that there is a student at our school who has such backward views.

    • Gay friends

      I don't understand why gay students would feel uncomfortable with NROTC on campus. I understand the moral objection to DADT, but practically speaking, nothing is being taken away from gay students by adding NROTC. NROTC will not create a homophobia-permissive zone. NROTC cadre and midshipmen will follow the same standard of behavior as applies to everyone else at Columbia.

      I think discomfort about NROTC would be more based on ignorance, prejudices and misconceptions about the military than the actual effects of NROTC on campus. Interaction and discourse is the answer to resolve differences, not validating negative stereotypes about the military by enforcing the absence of NROTC.

  89. thread continued...  

    on the issue of boycotting: Did Rosa Parks boycott the Montgomery buses on her own? For 40 years? At first because she hated buses, and then only later because of discrimination?

    Of course not. She protested with her body, caused an outrage, and inspired the boycott that worked.

    So stop pretending like Columbia's boycott is actually doing anything for anyone besides ourselves. It's only stopping the military from becoming more liberal.

  90. CC 2009

    YES.

    Just for the fact that if the University wants to keep getting federal funding and research grants (as I'm sure it does,) it is forced by federal law to let the ROTC back on campus. As much as I like PrezBo, it is presumptuous to assume that the federal government will keep giving Columbia access to grants, etc. while he openly flaunts the law with regards to ROTC.

    As for DADT, I have plenty of gay friends and I still support the law, as it was enacted DEMOCRATICALLY by Congress. If you want to change it, elect someone else to Congress who would change it, except for the fact that the majority of Americans support DADT and why shouldn't they? Why should sexuality enter discussion in the military? Who cares if you're proud or embarrassed or whatever? I'm straight, I'm proud of that but it still has no place in the military.

    • aaa  

      Sure, change it democratically. But until then, it has no place on campus, if it violates our anti-discrimination policy.

      • violates?

        "But until then, it has no place on campus, if it violates our anti-discrimination policy."

        DADT, as much as it needs to change, actually doesn't violate the university's discrimination policy. The discrimination policy only protects against "unlawful discrimination" and DADT, for all its faults, is not unlawful. Also, the discrimination policy applies to Columbia's policies and DADT is a federal policy, not a Columbia policy - other schools with ROTC and identical discrimination policies to Columbia's make that distinction.

        The same rules against discrimination harrassment apply to NROTC cadre and midshipmen.

        Finally, Columbia already makes accomodations for the discrimination policy, eg, Barnard's admissions policy.

      • Our campus...

        If we want to keep our discriminatory policy (in fact, the military does not discriminate against gays at all. DADT just means you can't be OPENLY gay. Which I don't see why you would need to be....in the military. Honestly, who gives a !@#$?,) then we should give up our federal grant funding and other federal money. If Bollinger wants to do that, great. Otherwise, follow the law.

  91. the yes faction  

    has already admitted (at the NROTC forum) that there is no way to PROVE that admitting students from liberal arts colleges would improve the condition of the military in any way.


    Why do you guys think that Columbia (or any Ivy League's) students have this magical ability to make an institution more progressive with their presence?

    STUDENTS FROM LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES ARE CURRENTLY SERVING. Can we make the generalization that they are spreading ideas of tolerance throughout the military? Of course not. It is an elitist assumption to think that lower class/ non-formally educated people are less able to change homophobic mindsets than Columbia students.

    Whoever would join NROTC on this campus would do it for their own reasons. We can not say that Columbia would help fight against Don't Ask Don't Tell because that assumes everyone who joins would be an anti-homophobia crusader.

    The military trains people to think as a unit. It purposely attempts to strip you of your individuality. Dissent is not encouraged. I have worked with many veterans on anti-war movements who stress that bootcamp is a tactic for dehumanization that rewards obedience.

    The best way to fight against Don't Ask Don't Tell is to pressure our politicians to change the federal law, organize the people into national campaigns, mobilize support, and demonstrate our rejection of the military's current practices. ALLOWING NROTC BACK ONTO CAMPUS WOULD SHOW SOLIDARITY TO THE MILITARY AND ITS CURRENT POLICIES.

    And even if we made the NROTC program at Columbia "progressive," open LGBT students would not be allowed to serve in the actual military BECAUSE ITS AGAINST THE FEDERAL LAW.

    • the no faction

      "I have worked with many veterans on anti-war movements"

      Why don't you work with the many veterans who attend Columbia? There is actually a campus veterans group at Columbia called MilVets. Or better yet, work with the Columbia student-veterans, including the gay veterans, in the Columbia NROTC return movement.

      "there is no way to PROVE that admitting students from liberal arts colleges would improve the condition of the military in any way."

      Is there any way to prove Columbia graduates influence any other part of our society to the standard your propose? ROTC advocates simply propose that the same standard for advancing the public good we support when investing our graduates in other parts of society should apply to the military as well.

      What we can prove is that military officers are the leaders within the military with the influence of their position. From day one, officers are directly responsible and in charge of servicemen and women. As they are promoted, their influence increases with rank. They have proven power to make a proven difference - for better or worse - for real people. Who do we want to be making that difference? I say Columbia graduates as officers can make a difference for the better.

  92. CC'10  

    Yes,
    and enlisting upon graduation. Can't wait to go fight MUSLIM terrorsts

  93. BC'10  

    No.

    Make peace, not war.

  94. SEAS 10  

    am i the only person who just didnt vote?

  95. Yes  

    because I believe we should hear what they have to say, even if we don't agree with it. I don't believe that by inviting ROTC on campus we are endorsing every part of their organization, and we have plenty of organizations on campus which directly or indirectly are in conflict with university discrimination policies. I'd like to think Columbia students are smart enough to decide for themselves what's a load of bull and what's not.

    Keeping them off campus is the equivalent of covering our ears while yeling LaLaLaLaLaLa. 4 year olds can do that.

    In response to some other commenters: if EVERY college excluded ROTC, it might have some effect; if Columbia does it, it just makes us look like the whiny liberal, anti-military institution we are.

    • And

      "In response to some other commenters: if EVERY college excluded ROTC, it might have some effect;"

      Worse, there is no shortage of small conservative colleges lining up and inviting ROTC to their campus. Every day that Columbia artificially depresses the number of our graduates who become leaders of our military, those leaders are coming from sources with dissimilar values than ours.

  96. cc '10  

    abso-fuckin-lutely NO.
    Discrimination isn't a debate -- it is wrong on a moral level and then also in violation of University policy.

    If we want to discuss the military itself then that is subject to debate. (I'd still vote no though).

  97. sad  

    that columbia is so obsessed with their precious gays, who care more about what scarf they wear on wednesday than they care about their country.
    Gays are blasphemizers of nature. I'm sorry, but it just isn't natural to do the things they do. Their "love" is nothing, but carnal lust of the most absurd and disgusting kind and worse, there is no biological excuse for this lust.
    Inspite of this they have the opportunity to serve in the military. DDAT is a fare policy. Do gays go self righteously declaring that they enjoy putting things up their rear ends on their grad school or flancy buisiness applications?
    Like any of these whinny homos would join the military anyways. Pretty funny to imagine them leading troops to battle.

    • CC'11  

      Yes.

      For many reasons. Mainly, we can't stay locked in our ivory tower with our liberal attitudes while ROTC recruits in poor neighborhoods. And for all you who would then say that ROTC shouldn't recruit ANYWHERE- are you serious? What world do you live in? Do you really think our country would be better, or even EXIST, if we didn't have a military?

      Also, I'm gay. So obviously I oppose DADT as much as anyone else on this campus (except #40 and #167, obviously). But boycotting ROTC will not end this policy. Marching on Washington, calling our Senators, making Obama KNOW how much we care about it will. This is the first time I've ever heard the campus at large debating gay issues- obviously, bringing ROTC on campus doesn't make our campus more homophobic. I think we all want to overturn DADT and ending our boycott makes us a more legitimate voice in the debate.

    • Wrong

      NROTC at Columbia honors and supports gay soldiers, too. Many gay soldiers have served honorably and sacrificed greatly for our nation, despite DADT. Gay soldiers, and all soldiers, deserve the best and brightest officers to lead them, and that means Columbia graduates. Banning ROTC from Columbia does two things. One, it does absolutely nothing to help them on DADT except remove an influence that should be advocating for them and a source of supportive officers. Two, the reject status for ROTC by Columbia devalues their, and everyone else's, military service.

    • wtf

      Fuck you. Go move to Arkansas and vote no on the next anti-gay referendum.

  98. CC '10  

    No. The university is a place of learning. When the American university and the American military have overlapped spheres in the past, the results have always been bad. We owe the nuclear bomb, napalm, and agent orange to the hybridization of these two institution.

    Let's devote the scholarship money that funds ROTC participants to investing more in Pell Grants so that low income students can attain higher education without resorting to volunteering in a military that is composed disproportionately of low-income, minority, and illegal immigrant ranks.

    For me DADT is only the tip of the iceberg.

  99. SEAS 09  

    No.

    Columbia should not contribute to the military in any way (research, investment, ROTC). We are critics of state violence, not supporters.

  100. CC 2011

    I voted No. I'm gay and would prefer to be able to be able to fully participate in the university.

  101. RESULTS

    Exit Poll Results:

    CC voted 52% against -- 2012 was the most opposed, voting 69% against. 2011 was the most in favor, voting 58% yes.

    SEAS voted 69% against -- 2012 (2 voters) voted 100% against; 2011 (1 voter) voted 100% in favor; 2010 (7 voters) voted 71% against; 2009 (6 voters) voted 67% against.

    Barnard tied 50-50 -- 2012 (1 voter) voted 100% yes; 2011 (1 voter) voted 100% no; 2010 (4 voters) split evenly; 2009 split evenly (2 voters).

    GS (5 voters) voted 60% against.

    Lesbian and gay voters (8 total) voted 63% against. The number is probably higher, since this was unsolicited information

  102. Alexa

    No

    If this were about black people not joining the military, this wouldn't even be a question

  103. cc 11

    NO. i do not support discrimination on colubmia's campus

  104. CC'10

    No.

    There won't be any change in the policy unless the smart people that they want say 'no' to the discrimination.

    • smart peolpe...

      lol. the military doesn't want irrational (boo McCain, but silence for Obama on ROTC) terrorist sympathizing drug using hippies.

    • No/yes

      "There won't be any change in the policy unless the smart people that they want say 'no' to the discrimination."

      Unfortunately, banning ROTC looks to the outside world like Columbia is saying 'no' to selfless service to the nation and American people through the critical civic duty of military service.

      Meanwhile, the protest, such as it is, is worthless because other schools are lining up to invite NROTC to their campuses in order to invest their graduates into the military as officers.

      With NROTC at Columbia, DADT protestors certainly can continue to protest DADT by refraining from joining NROTC, while allowing their Columbia classmates who wish to serve as the military's leaders the fair opportunity to join NROTC on campus.

      Columbia can and should oppose DADT and support NROTC. Columbia makes a difference when we educate, but we become irrelevant when we boycott.

  105. is it discrimination  

    to favor heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships? even if the individuals are treated the same? and on what grounds? "all men are created equal." they can all marry whoever they like. our country prefers they marry women over men, though, and thus treats these relationships differently. why is that discrimination?

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.