18 CommentsHot on the heels of the CC/SEAS/GS results, Barnard’s numbers came in just a few moments ago. Here’s how they look:
Total # Votes: 1,189
Yes: 453 (38.1%)
No: 736 (61.9%)
Yes: 453 (38.1%)
No: 736 (61.9%)
According to SGA President Sarah Besnoff: “The results of this vote indicate that this is an issue that will be discussed in the University Senate. Our University Senator will use these results when discussing student sentiment on the topic. Because of the clear majority for “no” votes, should our University Senator be asked to vote on the issue, she will vote “no” in accordance with these results.”
Keep in mind that Barnard’s tally isn’t subject to the same objections as that of the other three schools, as students used their UNIs to vote via their eBear accounts (Barnard’s SSOL).
Loading …
18 Comments
@aha Funny that the only school at Columbia which excludes (or, should I say, discriminates?) on the basis of sex– and whose sole reason for existence is exclusion on the basis of sex– voted this way. The irony is impossible to escape.
@not Barnard Women don’t poop. That’s why they’re full of shit.
@Not true! Women in fact do poop:
http://www.2girls1cup.com
@barnard barnard is not columbia, stop reporting about them on this columbia blog
@yeah barnard isn’t columbia. but it’s across the street…. local news?
@what about the non-stats-lingo version of the margin of error stemming from the fact that there is a 39 vote margin but that 2000 votes were tossed (as berg was pointing out)? I am not a statistics person so is there a way to incorporate this?
@Interesting cuz Barnard is the most blatant violator of the discrimination policy at Columbia.
@Yeah! Barnard craps all over trans-gender students as well. That is, if women crap (I’ve never seen proof of this).
@proof do i have a video for you!
@yeah! and because two negatives make a positive, we should violate our discrimination policy again!
@Actually “we should violate our discrimination policy again!”
It’s not clear NROTC would actually violate the discrimination policy because the discrimination policy protects against “unlawful discrimination” whereas DADT is a federal law and therefore by definition not unlawful, and applies to “its policies”, meaning Columbia administered policies, whereas DADT is a federal policy. Other schools with ROTC and discrimination policies make the distinction clear that DADT is not their university’s policy.
I’m not sure where this misconception started that NROTC would violate the discrimination policy, because it doesn’t appear to be the case that it would.
@ah, yes “The law tells me to, so I did”
So many great statements begin that way.
@BC'10 Ingrate feminist bitches
@wow i am gay and i’m anti nrotc.
just because someone’s a PART of that group doesn’t mean they represent everyone in the group.
@well touche dipshit.
@Hey nice appeal to populism as a leadership model.
“Because of the clear majority for “no” votes, should our University Senator be asked to vote on the issue, she will vote “no” in accordance with these results.”
Are you serious? Leaders make tough choices based on principles. Would the pro-choice or gay rights movement agree that decisions should be made based on the majority view?
@In addition I have a number of gay friends who not only call out bullshit on the claim that allowing NROTC on campus would be a breach of the university’s ethics but they printed out flyers arguing as much.
@yeah I have gay friends too.