In Case You Thought Shutting Out the ROTC at Colleges was about Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell…
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
…we get this horrible story—disabled war vet jeered at Columbia. First, this kind of thing brings up, for me, the teeth-grinding hypocrisy of the entire Kerry Presidential campaign. He belonged to the party that spat on our soldiers (and worse), and much of the reason why our soldiers had been spat on in the Vietnam era was because of Kerry and his Senatorial testimony. And suddenly they were pretending that you had to be a war hero to be president and they loved our soldiers? The entire thing was a lie, from start to finish.
Second, the Dana who got an Instalink notes that the school’s non-discrimination policy applies to veterans like Mr. Maschek, including a prohibition on harassment. The behavior described in the article would appear to run afoul of that policy and thus the school would have cause for disciplining those students, or so Dana argues. But in fact he might be only half right. I have seen court cases where policies against discrimination have been interpreted as creating a contact, meaning that even if no state or federal law protected Mr. Maschek, his detrimental reliance on their promise to prevent harassment based on military service creates an obligation on their part to discipline those students. In other words, if they don’t discipline those students, he might have a cause of action against the school for breach of contract.
Now, I have long felt that “hostile environment” type harassment should have been read out of our civil rights laws –at least when the harassment is merely words and not conduct such as threats, or the solicitation of prostitution (which is often what sexual harassment really is). And I say this as a man who has directly benefited from our civil rights laws. But merely calling a person a name? To read the law as forbidding that is to allow Congress to do what the constitution forbids under the First Amendment. But in this case we are not talking about a congressional law, but the interpretation of contracts, and so the First amendment is not implicated. And, as they say, sauce for the gander…
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Yes, that was all a bluff;
Universities should not be involved in military activities,” Sociology Professor Emeritus Herbert Gans told The Post. “Columbia should come out against spending $300 billion a year on unnecessary wars.”
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN#ixzz1EXUFqv8V
narciso (28df0c) — 2/20/2011 @ 2:02 pmthe military is doing just fine without a bunch of ivy league pansies I think, but they should keep trying to get ROTC established there just cause it shows everybody that Columbia, where our little president man purportedly did some learnings, is anti-American plus also they laugh at crippled people
happyfeet (ab5779) — 2/20/2011 @ 2:05 pmThis would be the same Columbia University that fought tooth and nail to have Ahmadinejad speak on their campus and welcomed him with open arms, no?
These diaper babies are so dreadfully insulated from reality that I fear they will be incapable of functioning in the *real* world when the time comes.
And in other news, when did it become socially acceptable to make fun of those with physical infirmities, or is this just something unique to our elite universities?
Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/20/2011 @ 2:29 pmSorry. He doesn’t get a free pass and shouldn’t get preferential status because he’s a disabled vet. Frankly, I don’t think he should get preferential status because of his military service, but Columbia seems to disagree with me. Students and others should be free to debate and jeer him, just like tend to do conservatives do to liberals/moderates on blogs.
And, BTW, Columbia’s policies don’t seem to cover this because one of them only applies to employees/applicants for employment and because I don’t think jeering qualifies as humilitating and abusive conduct.
1).
As an equal opportunity and afffirmative action employer, the University does not discriminate against or permit harassment of EMPLOYEES OR APPLICANTS FOR EMPLOYMENT][Ed note: NOT STUDENTS] on the basis of race, color, sex, gender (including gender identity and expression), pregnancy, religion, creed, national origin, age, alienage and citizenship, status as a perceived or actual victim of domestic violence, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, military status, partnership status, genetic predisposition or carrier status, arrest record, or any other legally protected status. In the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other University-administered programs, it does not discriminate against any person or permit the harassment of any student or applicant on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, pregnancy, religion, creed, marital status, partnership status, age, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, military status, or any other legally protected status. All members of the University community are expected to adhere to the applicable policies and to cooperate with the procedures for responding to complaints of discrimination.
2). COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND STUDENT NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES
Columbia University is committed to providing a learning environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment and to fostering a nurturing and vibrant community founded upon the fundamental dignity and worth of all of its members. Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws, it is the policy of the University not to tolerate unlawful discrimination or harassment in any form and to provide students who feel that they are victims of discrimination or harassment with mechanisms for seeking redress.
Columbia University does not discriminate against any person in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other University-administered programs or permit the harassment of any student or applicant on the basis of race, color, sex, gender (including gender identity and expression), pregnancy, religion, creed, marital status, partnership status, age, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, military status, or any other legally protected status.
Nothing in this policy shall abridge academic freedom or the University’s educational mission. Prohibitions against discrimination and harassment do not extend to statements or written materials that are germane to the classroom subject matter.
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of these policies and procedures, discrimination, discriminatory harassment, and sexual harassment are defined as follows:
Discrimination
Discrimination is defined as:
• treating members of a protected class less favorably because of their membership in that class; or
• having a policy or practice that has a disproportionately adverse impact on protected class members.
Discriminatory Harassment
Discriminatory harassment is defined as substantially interfering with an individual’s educational experience by subjecting him or her to SEVERE AND THREATENING or to REPEATED HUMILIATING AND ABUSIVE CONDUCT, based on his or her membership in a protected class. This includes sexual harassment, which is described below in further detail.
Sexual Harassment
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:
• submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s education; or
• submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for academic decisions affecting that individual; or
• such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, demeaning, or offensive academic or living environment.
Consensual, romantic relationships between faculty and other employees and students are generally not considered sexual harassment and are not prohibited by University policy. Individuals should be aware, however, that these relationships are susceptible to being characterized as non-consensual, and even coercive, if there is an inherent power differential between the parties. For further information, students and employees should consult the Romantic Relationship Advisory Statement which is printed here and available online at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/eoaa/docs/romance.html.
Jim (ad29d8) — 2/20/2011 @ 2:33 pmGreat Daytona 500
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/20/2011 @ 2:34 pmCould be worse. UC Irvine? Horrible in any event. (And at least there seem to be consequences at UCI.)
Mitch (6ab781) — 2/20/2011 @ 2:48 pmAnd in other news, when did it become socially acceptable to make fun of those with physical infirmities, or is this just something unique to our elite universities?
We all know that those social standards only apply to the “little people”, and that our “elites”, and their institutions, are exempt; because, as we all know, they are so much betterthan we, the great unwashed.
AD-RtR/OS! (08307a) — 2/20/2011 @ 3:05 pmJD, a wonderful day to be a Woods Bros fan!
AD-RtR/OS! (08307a) — 2/20/2011 @ 3:07 pm7.And in other news, when did it become socially acceptable to make fun of those with physical infirmities, or is this just something unique to our elite universities?
We all know that those social standards only apply to the “little people”, and that our “elites”, and their institutions, are exempt; because, as we all know, they are so much betterthan we, the great unwashed.
–Where is there anything in the linked articles that suggests this had anything to do with his physical infirmites?
Jim (ad29d8) — 2/20/2011 @ 3:08 pmI fully support the revolution. I fully support being quiet, taking names, and letting the left create a society where the state is supreme. Then it will be co-opted and scores will be settled – all in furtherance of the revolution, or course. Parasites and counter-revolutionaries should surrender themselves to the people’s punishment – resistance only confirms that the petit-BOURGEOIS professor-toriat is anti-Worker, therefore anti-American – and America stands for truth, freedom, and no repression of racial/enthic minorities and freedom for Gay, lesbian, trangender et al. Why does Columbia hate racial/enthic minorities and freedom for Gay, lesbian, trangender et al???
Or perhaps we should merely rename the military the Peoples’ Liberation Army – thus instantly legitimate and opposition thereto is racist, imperialist and probably homophobic as well.
Californio (60d03d) — 2/20/2011 @ 3:26 pmThere are very few gray areas in Rule-7.62!
AD-RtR/OS! (08307a) — 2/20/2011 @ 3:30 pm> And in other news, when did it become socially acceptable to make fun of those with physical infirmities,
I don’t know. seems like people have been making fun of the handicapped my whole life. not approving, obviously, just noticing.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/20/2011 @ 3:37 pmYes, but AW, doesn’t it seem incongruous to hear such things from that segment that demonizes those who are “judgemental”?
They seem to have confiscated an entire spectrum of the vocabulary as their own, but deny that it applies to themselves.
AD-RtR/OS! (08307a) — 2/20/2011 @ 4:16 pmAD
> doesn’t it seem incongruous to hear such things from that segment that demonizes those who are “judgemental”?
No more than their unwillingness to fight terrorism, etc.
i mean in america our “oppression” of gay people mainly adds up to some discrimination and not letting them marry.
In Afghanistan, they pull down walls on gay people.
So you would think they would be gung ho about changing that. but, no, that would be judgmental, you see.
Aaron "Haiku" Worthing (73a7ea) — 2/20/2011 @ 4:24 pmHow about 10,000 or so vets who live around there to to the college well armed and take care of it themselves, The slandered vets will get no help from the administration.
Scrapiron (7a38de) — 2/20/2011 @ 4:27 pmI don’t know. seems like people have been making fun of the handicapped my whole life. not approving, obviously, just noticing.
AW, that is of course, most unfortunate. I will remember to add a /sarc tag when necessary.
My sarcastic point is, here we have an American college campus that in light of it’s lofty goals and ideals at its inception, this place of higher learning has now been reduced to little more than spoiled children permitted to make fun of those with infirmities – and even more telling is their complete inability and insight to recognize the heroic:
In July 1754, Samuel Johnson held the first classes in a new schoolhouse adjoining Trinity Church, located on what is now lower Broadway in Manhattan. There were eight students in the class. At King’s College, the future leaders of colonial society could receive an education designed to “enlarge the Mind, improve the Understanding, polish the whole Man, and qualify them to support the brightest Characters in all the elevated stations in life”.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 2/20/2011 @ 4:27 pmColumbia has made itself notorious since the 60s when marauding students took over the campus and terrorized the administration, especially the diaper wetting president of the university. That example, then encouraged all the misbehavior of the rest of the 60s campus radicals.
We still have the Solomon law that with holds federal funds from campuses that deny recruiters and other services to the military.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 2/20/2011 @ 4:53 pmMuch like the board of the Sirius cybernetic corporation, well you know the rest. Why deprive
narciso (28df0c) — 2/20/2011 @ 5:11 pmour soldiers and sailors, the exposure to an intellect like Mika Brzezinski
Dana, do not forget that our very own president led the way in legitimizing the mocking of the handicapped when he went on TV and admitted he bowls like a retard.
elissa (841eab) — 2/20/2011 @ 5:17 pmWhy should any of this coming out of Columbia surprise anyone? Columbia was the mine in which FDR recruited his original Brain Trust, including Rex (The Red) Tugwell. And the university has continued to provide radical left wing thought, enough for the entire nation, having such professors as Edward Said, and producing socialist thinkers like Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., for years.
Not only should Columbia be denied federal funds, it should also be legislated that no Pell grants, or any other type of federally financed student loans, be able to be used at Columbia, and any other university that holds such anti-military, radical policies.
retire05 (63d9af) — 2/20/2011 @ 5:27 pmI’m starting to think that about 1/2 of the country is getting screwed by the other 1/2. And those doing the screwing are not going to give it up easily.
kansas (1fc602) — 2/20/2011 @ 6:30 pmIt is always interesting how those who have the least experience in military life (as in: none) are the first to criticize/belittle/condemn those who have honorably served our nation.
navyvet (db5856) — 2/20/2011 @ 7:10 pmThese people actually are anti-American.
SPQR (26be8b) — 2/20/2011 @ 7:26 pmI’m thinking I don’t know what California is taking, but I’ll give it try.
Ag80 (7a9f97) — 2/20/2011 @ 7:55 pmAg80, I think it can be distilled down to:
AD-RtR/OS! (08307a) — 2/20/2011 @ 8:57 pmColumbia needs to meet Pol Pot!
“…we get this horrible story—disabled war vet jeered at Columbia.”
I wouldn’t get too upset by what a bunch of stupid college kids say. They’re college kids, they’re supposed to act like morons.
As for the leftoid university administrators that want to block ROTC programs, that’s easy to fix. Make any federal, state or local grant to institutions of learning contingent on the presence of an ROTC program at the institution recieving said grant.
No ROTC program, no government handouts whatsoever.
Do that, and the tax-suckers at the universities will change their tune in a big hurry, and my guess is is that the vast majority of the voting American public would support laws like that.
Write your Congresscritter and get the ball rolling.
Dave Surls (736363) — 2/20/2011 @ 9:58 pmIn the United States, the duly elected federal government, not the military, determines which wars are necessary and which are not.
The cost of the military is also determined by the duly elected civilian government. Here’s the process:
The president submits a military budget request to congress. House and Senate Armed Forces Committees review and modify the requirements, meet in conference to resolve their differences. House and Senate Appropriations Committees decide which programs will be funded and at what level. They too meet in conference to resolve their differences. The Defense Appropriations Bill is debated on the floor, modified, reconciled and passed. The President signs the Act and Department of Defense complies with the direction of the Commander in Chief.
With all due respect, there is no requirement for the federal government to gain approval from any Sociology Professor Emeritus unless he is in Congress or the Oval Office. In fact, I can think of no reason for anyone to listen to the opinion of any Sociology Professor Emeritus on any subject.
Arch (24f4f2) — 2/21/2011 @ 1:56 amI think Dana is 0% right. To the extent the guy was harassed, I don’t think it was because of his military status… rather, it was because of his views. In other words, even if he wasn’t a disabled vet, I think he still would have been “hissed and booed”.
Kman (5576bf) — 2/21/2011 @ 6:19 amJeering soldiers is bad.
Don’t ask, don’t tell is bad.
A website practically founded on the idea of media bias cites a New York Post article for me to read and believe the guy was jeered because … why?
carlitos (c006f6) — 2/21/2011 @ 7:34 amFrom the link on Dana’s site;
http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/war-and-peaceful-debate
narciso (28df0c) — 2/21/2011 @ 7:55 amThanks narciso. I still see no indication that either author (Annie Karni of the Post, or Emily Tamkin of Columbia) was even present at the event. Sounds like generic outrage based on thirdhand accounts to me.
Maybe I’m over-stating it, but my skeptical radar kicked in when this topic was set up with “spitting on soldiers” circa Vietnam. Spitting on returning Vietnam vets is true like Bill Clinton’s memories of church burnings or flying from London to LaGuardia are true.
carlitos (c006f6) — 2/21/2011 @ 8:15 amActually there have been plenty of examples of the former, Kerry’s Winter Soldiers ‘blood libel, that started his political career, not so much, (exceptions with the Tiger Force, and Mylai that
narciso (28df0c) — 2/21/2011 @ 8:25 amwere in the same province,)
Maybe I was unclear.
“Spitting on returning Vietnam vets” is an urban myth that reached public consciousness in the 1980’s.
Bill Clinton’s memories of church burnings in Arkansas “to intimidate civil rights workers” when he was a kid were a confabulation. They never happened.
Bill Clinton’s memories of flying from Oxford to LaGuardia and walking to Harlem are false. It never happened.
Believing things that aren’t true, simply because they support your worldview is, in my humble opinion, problematic.
carlitos (c006f6) — 2/21/2011 @ 8:34 amThe statement that universitys should come out against “unnecessary wars” is something i would like to challenge. First universitys are not even the legal fiction of beings such as corporations unless they are private for profit schools and as such have no political rights. The individual professors have a right to oppose wars or anything else, however we elect people to our govt. to decide if any war is “necessary”.We have an example of just how little academic degrees are as qualification for our political leadership.He is on TV almost everyday lecturing us instead of leading us.His wife insists that her ivy league pedigree gives her a duty to hector house wives on feeding their familys.I am a vietnam vet so i am personally outraged by this crap but they and their minions spew insults at people like me several times a day through their lapdog media thus inspiring my rants.
dunce (b89258) — 2/21/2011 @ 8:58 amComrades:
By definition, the university is against “unnecessary” wars – don’t you dummies see “unnecessary” in the title?! What is the definition of “unnecessary”? Don’t be ignorant! That definition will be supplied later – depending upon who the university wants to condemn. It is all very scientific!
Californio (a60957) — 2/22/2011 @ 5:41 pmAngela Davis, William Ayers or someother advocate for the killing of blue-collar working americans will supply the definition of “unnecessary”….
Californio (a60957) — 2/22/2011 @ 5:56 pm