Connect with us

All Articles

Nice to Know: ROTC Results Broken Down by School

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

CC  53.0%  
SEAS  46.4%     
 53.6%  0.0% 
 GS  44.4%     

 55.1%   0.5%

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

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.



  • SEAS supports NROTC says:

    @SEAS supports NROTC Should the university deny NROTC to SEAS students when NROTC impacts and benefits them most of all?

  • come on says:

    @come on At least part of being tolerant is allowing those who have views that differ from yours to have a voice and a place on campus. Just because you don’t personally agree with NROTC or because you wouldn’t want to be in NROTC doesn’t mean it doesn’t deserve to have a place on campus. Saying that NROTC doesn’t have a place on campus solely because of DADT is to miss the point that to be in the military doesn’t necessarily have to mean that you’re a homophobic fascist a**hole or that you necessarily support DADT.

    The issue is bigger than just DADT and it’s unfortunate to let the opportunity for military integration with the civilian community pass. Frankly, some of the rhetoric that was going on the week of the survey smacked of 1950s-1960s racism – e.g ‘not letting them in here’ was a phrase I definitely heard more than once while on campus.

    Look, if you honestly want the military to be tolerant of openly gay servicemen (and women), then being completely intolerant of the military as it is now isn’t going to accomplish anything except to show that intolerance goes in both directions. If you honestly believe, for example, that gays should be treated equally then you need to extend that equal treatment and respect to NROTC folk, even if you don’t agree or respect everything about their program (to preempt, I happen to think that gays should be treated the same as everyone else, but I acknowledge that there are other opinions, which I disagree with but acknowledge).

    There’s a difference between working to create a meaningful, progressive dialogue, and stuffing your fingers in your ears while shouting so that you can’t hear what other people have to say. Part of being a part of a diverse community is accepting that not everyone in that community is necessarily like you, and being tolerant is being OK with that. If you want people to be tolerant of what you believe is right, at least have the common decency to be tolerant towards others as well.

    1. Wow... says:

      @Wow... …a toddler with Parkinson’s and a crayon could connect the dots better than you. What are you, a first-year?

      1. What says:

        @What are you a dog?

  • For real? says:

    @For real? “Segregationists?”

    Yeah, real classy rhetoric.

    (…beware the military-industrial complex)

  • SEAS '12 says:

    @SEAS '12 I ashamed of my school.

    1. Open your mind says:

      @Open your mind SEAS ’12, you shouldn’t be so close-minded.

      It struck me during the NROTC debates that NROTC opponents were the segregationists who sought to exclude and ban, with a pessimistic view of Columbia. NROTC advocates had an optimistic view of Columbia and they were the integrationists who sought to add to the campus and enrich Columbia without taking anything away.

      Just goes to show, the more pragmatic SEAS and GS are more open to the world than idealogically confined CC and Barnard.

  • CU ROTC lives says:

    @CU ROTC lives This news means that ROTC advocacy lives on, especially NROTC advocacy.

  • false says:

    @false okay i know this is false. my friend and i are both in seas and we both abstained.
    so polls are false. and eff you to whomever voted in my place. fraud.

  • SEAS and NROTC says:

    @SEAS and NROTC The NROTC initiative started in SEAS because Navy career service options are particularly well suited for SEAS engineers, given the mechanical nature of the Navy. (‘Humanities’ oriented CC graduates would be better off as Army or Marines officers, whose jobs are much more people and culture-centric.) Therefore, it stands to reason that NROTC would have disproportionate benefits for SEAS and SEAS students would vote for NROTC. It’s a shame that the prejudice of their classmates, who would not benefit from NROTC as much as their SEAS classmates, has denied SEAS students access to careers that suit them especially well, and would serve the nation and the American people.

    I support the university trustees stepping in to instate NROTC for the sake of SEAS.

  • SEAS... says:

    @SEAS... those are the semi-autistic asian kids, right?

  • Thoughts says:

    @Thoughts Perhaps engineers are more pragmatic in a “ends justify the means” sense, so they were less turned off by the current DADT policy. Perhaps engineers like the military. Maybe people with higher SAT scores (SEAS > CC) are more in favor of ROTC?

    I know a lot of bratty Columbia students hate to hear this, but generally GS students know a lot more about the larger world than 19 year-olds who take strong political stands (on either side) just because they’ve [maybe] read about it. This doesn’t mean they’re “right” on this topic, but I’m just saying…

    1. sure says:

      @sure possibly, but I bet we ‘bratty’ Columbia students are better informed than GS students when we are 45, and have jobs, and don’t use words like ‘bratty’.

      1. Surprising says:

        @Surprising But I’m not a GS student, just doing this off-campus (hence no crown).

        You took the bratty adjective upon yourself there, #14. I never said all Columbia students are bratty, I was just discussing those that are. Nice to know it’s a self-recognizing group though.

  • Um, says:

    @Um, Barnard is > Seas. And > Columbia College.

    So, yeah.

    Girl power.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous What a surprise, the worse schools are more conservative.

    Notice a trend?

    1. Observations says:

      @Observations GS students need more outside scholarships than other undergraduates. Engineering is important for all branches of the military.

    2. CC'11 says:

      @CC'11 Wow, you’re a complete asshole. Normally, I’d write something more intelligent, but I’m studying for finals.

    3. try this says:

      @try this Instead of saying that the “worse” schools are more conservative, consider the following. SEAS has a large male population, and GS has some u.s. veterans in their population (friends supporting vets–> more voting “yes”?). Because of these two factors, it may be likely that the _demographic_ voted “yes,” not the quality of school; it is in all likeliness, not causation, but a slight correlation, that “worse” schools mean more conservative voters. And, since one study using four schools placed in a liberal microcosm of the university setting is most likely already a biased study, you probably could not draw ANY conclusions from why anyone would vote a certain way.

      Since Barnard’s population of women (of all sexual persuasion) voted against NROTC, could we relate that women and College male voters probably voted “no”? By your argument, are you supposing that Barnard is, since they voted with higher proportion “no”, better than the College?

    4. Hopefully thoughtful says:

      @Hopefully thoughtful You are hilarious! By that (non-scientific) logic, you would then have to plot Barnard as a better school than CC. Empirically, the type of person that would write a comment like that (such as yourself) would NEVER allow that!

      I am embarrassed that you go to this school, because you are someone who can’t see the value of your peers to your left and right. No matter how you voted, the issue is simple for some people, complex for others.

      The condition of knowing yourself is knowing the condition others. (JSMill)

    5. so, says:

      @so, Barnard > SEAS?

  • LMX says:

    @LMX Let’s hypothesize – why would more students in SEAS favor ROTC?

    1. Because says:

      @Because they are rational unlike the hordes of Art History, English, and MEALAC majors in CC

    2. because says:

      @because they’re more conservative?

      A poll for the 1968 general election of engineers showed that 50+% of engineers (admittedly not those at Columbia) supported segregationist Gov. George Wallace.


  • whatever says:

    @whatever rotc aint comin hurr. woot!!!

  • they says:

    @they clicked the link and then didn’t vote

  • confused says:

    @confused how the hell did people vote abstain? the only choices were “yes” and “no”.

  • pweeease says:

    @pweeease make it a nice table

  • Ad

    Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    Counterpoint: Have you actually eaten there? The point about the disappointing sushi is right on. (read more)
    If Columbia Dining Halls Were Reviewed By CULPA
    September 29, 2020
    Mayo is totally weird but it totally works, definitely seconding that tip. Ditto the lid, it helps melt the cheese (read more)
    CWB: Grilled Cheese
    September 29, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel
    • COVID-19 misinformation