Posts tagged columbia

This Lecture Brought to You by McDonald’s

June 5, 2009 · Filed under Columbia University, Culture War, Insanity · Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Last year, I walked in to one of my classes about five minutes before class, got settled in, and waited for the professor to call the class to order and start teaching. He did the former, but he didn’t start the latter right away.

Instead, a representative from Kaplan — the standardized test corporation — was allowed to give a brief presentation about how awesome the Kaplan classes are (I think it was for the LSATs) and, while he did that, the TAs handed out Kaplan fliers.

Apparently, this wasn’t an isolated incident, either. A number of people I’ve talked to about this — as well as a reader who e-mailed us about this growing problem — have also experienced this invasion of our classrooms. You see, what I found eminently frustrating about this was not only that I was essentially part of a captive audience and that I had to deal with seeing even more advertising (I get more than enough living in NYC and on the internet, thanks): the money that I paid to take that class was being used to foist a product upon me.

But what was even more outrageous was the use of University employees (the TAs) to participate in the advertising. When I came to Columbia, I never expected the lifetime of debt to which I acquiesced to pay for the distribution of what I am sure the University administration would describe as “vital” “educational” “materials” or some nonsense. In all fairness to the TAs, however, I am sure they never expected to be the pack mules of Kaplan when they took the job.  Probably, it wasn’t even in the job description.

While the University administration might try to justify this obscenely obnoxious practice with the claim that they’re trying to keep the University above water by trying to raise more money, that claim is just laughable (for example, it’s been going on since before the economic crisis). While we’re being forced to pay to watch advertising from corporations such as Kaplan and RedBull (as our reader says), the Spec points out that the athletics department is still raking in millions and millions of dollars.

Keeping dorms open on the weekend (Wallach is now closed Friday through Sunday. Apparently it was also too costly to inform students about the change beforehand.) or our classrooms free from annoying advertisements? Apparently that’s just a luxury. But God forbid that we should cut our athletics spending or PrezBo’s ridiculous salary.

Leave a comment »

Moving On for a Bit

March 6, 2009 · Filed under Columbia University, Commentariat · Tagged , , ,

Alrighty folks. I’m moving on to the Commentariat full-time for a while. I know I make a lot of promises about updating that I don’t usually follow through on, but I will eventually come back to the Motherland.

I encourage you all to keep up with me there, and keep checking back here, because I might update every once in a while.

Best!

Leave a comment »

Exam and Essay Time

November 22, 2008 · Filed under Announcements, Columbia University, Humor, Internet · Tagged , , , , , ,

It’s exam an essay time, folks! I’m behind on my schoolwork, so I’m going to take a break from the blog for a week. I’ll see you back here soon!

‘twas the night before midterm and all through the place
not a person was snoring, nor had peace on their face
the students had drunk their beer with great care
in the hopes that t’would give essays a wee bit of flare.
Their TI’s were resting quite cozy in drawers,
while nightmares of exams crawled past on all fours.
And the RA in her undies and naught but much more,
Was collapsed on bed, while we noticed her snore.
When out from the quad there come such a bustle
As the cops stopped an Asian and got in a tussle.
To the windows we sprung, away with a clatter
To spy just in time the blood start to splatter.
‘tis good for the Po- that the Asian was drunk,
for all who do SEAS can say with great spunk:
he’d’ve computed the numbers and done all the math
and in the form of his shoe they’d encounter his wrath.

But woe unto him! This boy was too smashed!
His kick was too high, and missed and he crashed.
So the long arm of law lay in with great glee
In the project of turning his bones to debris.

Leave a comment »

Why Your Professor Supports Gay Marriage (and Other Revelations)

November 18, 2008 · Filed under Columbia University, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , , , ,

This originally appeared in the Commentariat, Columbia Spectator’s opinion blog.

In one of my previous posts, I asserted that professors and the highly-educated were liberal because progressive ideas were inherently better, and vice-versa. Clearly, as some have pointed out, this is, to a degree, complete nonsense for a variety of reasons. In fact, one of the problems I should point out with the studies that I cited is that they do not distinguish between social liberalism and economic liberalism. I would venture to say that, while many Columbia students are fairly economically liberal (that is, they believe in economic regulation, the New Deal, and so on to varying degrees), you’d be pretty hard-pressed to find a Huckabee supporter.

Anyway it’s time for an actual explanation of why professors are so liberal, part one.

The Republican-Democratic divide requires a closer look.

Columbia University Professor of statistics Gelman wrote an article (which he later turned into a book) in which he addresses this issue. He writes that:

income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America.” In poor states, rich people are much more likely than poor people to vote for the Republican presidential candidate, but in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has a very low correlation with vote preference.

In other words, wealthy people in blue states are likely to vote Democratic while their counterparts in Republican states are likely to vote Republican. The explanation for this is that:

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Compromising Positions

November 14, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Columbia University, Commentariat, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , ,

This article originally ran in the Commentariat, the Columbia Spectator opinion blog.

It was recently suggested to me by a number of people that Columbia students should think about ROTC compromises.

I would certainly be interested in exploring them — for example, if Columbia were to somehow institute affirmative action for LGBTQ students, provide an equal number of need-based and/or merit-based grants for queer students, and/or develop a Queer Studies program (it doesn’t exist, currently) as well as further fund the Ethnic studies program, I would be more amenable to allowing ROTC on campus — especially if they were required to take a Queer-history course or something of that sort. These things would certainly offset the cultural impact of having a homophobic institution on campus.

That doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t have any reservations with the military as an institution. Articles like these — Gay Military Discharges Down, Harassment Severe, Military Harassment of Gays Continues, Gay Group’s Study Finds Military Harassment Rising, and Military Takes Racial and Sexual Harassment More Seriously than Anti-Gay Violence, Report Shows — keep me worried about the military as a homophobic institution itself.

Furthermore, the fact that there would be a department for which a requirement to take classes would be heterosexuality. Not only this but students will be forced to sign a form saying: “Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry or continued enrollment in the ROTC program … I will be disenrolled from the ROTC program if … I have engaged in, have attempted to engage in or have solicited another to engage in a homosexual act.” Queer students will also be barred from participating in military science classes. I find this, as a Queer students, to be profoundly disturbing and offensive.

Unfortunately, the vote isn’t a vote on a compromise — there will be no increase to queer or ethnic studies funding or hiring, there will be no affirmative action for queer students, there will be no grants for queer students, there will certainly be no mandetory queer studies/history course for ROTC students. Given this and the fact that the military continues to be homophobic in both institutional culture and institutional policy, I urge everyone to vote NO.

Leave a comment »

Frontiers of Sigh-ance

November 13, 2008 · Filed under Columbia University · Tagged , , , ,

Science, it works, bitches.

Science, it works, bitches.

At Columbia, discussions about Frontiers of Science are so common that even by sophomore year I, like most of my classmates, have become uninterested in talking, reading, or doing anything that might call to mind the horrible memory that was that graduation requirement seemingly designed to enrage and stupify everyone.

Not suprisingly, in the recent editorial about the subject, the author offers not, as she claims in the title, a “new perspective on Frontiers of Science” but rather a fairly bland summary of the few arguments in favor of not entirely eliminating the course. And, yes, while the counterarguments have been offered up time and time again, this article seems to be the perfect opportunity for a rehashing of the arguments against Frontiers.

Wang begins with the notion that being at the forefront of one’s field is the same thing as being able to teach one’s field. This is both a common and wildly false (as clearly demonstrated by nearly everyone’s experience with the course) assertion. There are reasons that teaching certificates and teaching schools exist separately from doctorates and PhD programs. Amongst them is this: teaching, for example, physics and applying physics are two entirely different things requiring two entirely different skill-sets and talents. Having the ability to apply or innovate with physics — however brilliantly — does not mean that that same person will make a good physics teacher.

Wondering why Columbia students describe Frontiers as “stupid”, she then continues to explain that if Frontiers homework takes less time than our Lit Hum homework, we really ought not to be complaining. Speaking as someone who was never assigned a Frontiers homework assignment and as such was unprepared for and bewildered by the midterm and the final, I feel particularly qualified to speak on this subject. Did I have far less work for Frontiers than I did for Lit Hum? Yes. Yet Wang seemingly fails to remember that that this is Columbia. Neither I, nor, I am sure, my classmates, came to Columbia to take easy classes from which we would gain little.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what Frontiers of Science is, and more. I can safely say that Frontiers is by far the class that I have gained the least from. It is not — as Wang asserts — by lack of personal effort or by virtue of an “attitude problem” but rather the result of the inherent inanity of a course whose main function seems to be to talk about how awesome science is while simultaneously dragging down the GPA of non-science majors.

Then, in a bewildering and painful twist of logic, Wang praises the fact that Frontiers does not use a text book. There’s a phrase to explain this in high school: “No Child Left Behind took our funding”; in a world-famous university, this is entirely unacceptable. Wang’s own words, “Rarely would one expect to find such a class anywhere, let alone in high schools” is singularly descriptive of the situation: rarely would one expect to find a school board willing to approve such a wildly useless class anywhere, let alone in high schools.

In the same paragraph, Wang not only seems to discount “fake” science like, you know, physics and chemistry, but also those silly things we learned in high school. . .what were those called again? Oh, right. Formulas and concepts!

While Wang may bask in her new definition of “science” which somehow has no place for equations or textbooks, the rest of us are dumbstruck by how Frontiers manages to both overreach and condescend at the same time. Among the virtues she extols in the course, the author mentions “reading graphs, understanding some basic statistics…and defining assumptions, among others.” Interestingly enough, I believe I learned how to interpret graphs starting in about fifth grade, basic statistics in junior year, and defining my assumptions in freshman year algebra. None of these things (remember, these aren’t concepts, that’s what fake science is made of!) require a college level course to explain to some of the smartest kids in the nation.

What’s the practical use of this? Wang answers: Being able to “judge the accuracy” of a “CNN poll”. Interestingly, this is also something I was able to do long before I took Frontiers. Quelle suprise.

Never mind that, though, for the fuzzy logic continues. The author proceeds to discuss the “beauty of Frontiers” which, apparently, is that “even if two people have different answers to a problem…they can both be right.” The last time I checked — though I could just be speaking from being wildly misinformed by taking fakey physics and chemistry classes in high school that used textbooks and formulas — one of the great things about science was its objectivity. There is a right answer and a wrong answer, and an explanation for why. In “real” science, apparently, all that matters is that you try.

And yet Wang continues to wonder why Columbia students describe Frontiers of Science as “dumb.” My explanation is this: that single word is more readily available to the tongue than the phrase “mind-numbingly vapid.”

The author, however, is not wrong on everything: Frontiers is a challenging course, and it does challenge us to think in new ways. Frontiers is challenging because the professors are not always qualified, the section professors are not experts on all of the material, the material is wide-ranging and unrelated to anything else covered, the standards are insanely variable from section to section, and the expectations remain unexplained and nebulous throughout the semester. The new ways in which it teaches us to think are, for example, without a textbook, any source of objective reasoning or logic, and instead with a good dose of “well, you gotta figure” science.

Elaine, you are right that Frontiers is not a “joke” — for, if it were, it would be one of the cruelest perpetrated upon the Columbia student body in a long time.

Leave a comment »

Education by Jubilation

October 30, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Columbia University, Commentariat, LGBT Issues, NY State · Tagged , , , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

In its recent editorial, the editorial board of Spec demonstrated incredible ignorance in their analysis of the events promoted by “the QuAM” (this reference to QuAM demonstrates, in and of itself, a lack of familiarity with the group and events). In addition, the e-board’s implication that sexuality is a “preference” is dually offensive and further exemplary of their ignorance.

It is unfortunate that the board fell into the same trap that so many other media sources have and simply furthered the perception of “the queer” as a sex-crazed maniac with little concern for other matters. This is not only untrue, it is patently offensive.

In fact, as many of my fellow students pointed out in the comments, there are many, many other parties at Columbia which are equally or even more sexualized than the parties sponsored by QuAM or even queer groups in general. Perhaps a prime example of this would be those taking place on frat row, where homophobic and misogynistic prejudices remain their strongest and where value of consent remains the lowest. Indeed, where are the editorial board’s condemnations of the revelry in America’s bastions of heteronormativity?

The editorial’s condemnation of celebrations of queer sexuality is entirely unacceptable and furthermore harmful. In a society where, in many places, to be queer is to face harassment — be it in the workplace, the home, or school — physical violence, and shame, the exact opposite of condemnation is called for — and this is exactly what some of these events were designed to do.

Even in purportedly liberal places, LGBT people — and youths in particular — face a considerable amount of pressure to conform in a variety of ways. Some parents send their children to be brainwashed and “fixed” at camps run by fundamentalist Christian groups, sometimes gay youth face public humiliation when their church congregation prays for God to make them straight. More common, however, is for a demand of outward conformity. While the straight people around us are permitted or even expected to talk about their private lives, queer people are pressured to be silent about sex, romance, and who they find attractive — this expectation permeates not only friendships, but educational environments, a wide variety of professions, and, of course, the military.

There is a reason that the queer suicide rate has been reported to be between three to five times that of our heterosexual counterparts, and, undeniably, part of the reason behind that is the expectation of heterosexuality and the suppression of queer sexuality.

We live in a nation in which the question of queer rights is something up for debate, where my right to marry a person I love comes down to a razor thin vote, even in places like California. In this culture, to be anything other than heterosexual is inherently political, to express that sexuality is inherently political, and, by extension, the revelry which the e-board so strongly condemns is inherently political. This “revelry” is designed to help queer students become more comfortable with themselves and their sexuality, after eighteen, or nineteen, or twenty years of repressing it.

Lastly, while straight allies are highly valued in the LGBT community, the focus of QuAM is not to make them feel at home. It is to make queer students feel at home in a society where heterosexuality is assumed. While the vast majority of straight students rarely feel threatened because of their sexual identity, the same, unfortunately, cannot be said for queer students. Therefore, both a large and important part of QuAM is to create spaces friendly to and comfortable for non-heterosexual students. If those spaces make straight students feel uncomfortable, they have the other 11 months of the year and every other building and room not only on this campus, but in much of the rest of the world.

The only truly acceptable response to this travesty — indeed, that is exactly what the editorial piece represents — is a retraction and apology to the queer community at large.

EDIT: Tom Faure, the editor-in-chief of the Spectator,  recently wrote a conciliatory post on the editor’s blog. However, while certainly well-intentioned, it failed to address a wide variety of the complaints which were levelled against the editorial, amongst which was the fact that the editorial board referred to sexuality as a “preference”, implying that there is a choice involved in being a member of a marginalized and oppressed community.

Comments (1) »

The ROTC Debate

October 28, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Internet, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , ,

Following the publication, today, of my article about why ROTC shouldn’t return to campus a flurry of debate commenced. It goes as follows:

You say you’re upset about the apathy to the situation in Darfur. That’s nice. How do you expect the Muslim regime there will stop the genocide?

I know, we can ask them very, very nicely! Nope, that hasn’t worked.

I know, we can impose economic sanctions! Nope, that hasn’t worked.

Wait, wait, wait. We can send in a military strike team and take out these murderers of innocent women and children before they kill anyone else!

Oh no wait, but the military isn’t nice to gay people. It makes them stay quiet about their sexuality.

Oh well. Noah, would you do me a favor and tell little Abdul that he’s going to have to watch his mother raped and murdered tomorrow because the military’s policies on open sexuality make you uncomfortable? Thanks, dear.

- anonymous

I responded:

Considering that you’re probably speaking from the comfortable position of a heterosexual who has really never had to deal with the oppression facing homosexuals in this country today, your ability to entirely dismiss the issue of equal rights for gay people is not surprising. However, I’ll do my best to ignore your sarcasm and general douchey response to my article and try to actually argue against your claim that it’s totally okay for the military to not only discriminate against gay people, but to do so on our campus.

(1) The issue I’m trying to emphasize in this article is the effect that the arrival of the institution of the military would have on our campus culture, given the current discriminatory rules it enforces. Ultimately, its discriminatory culture would make both myself and other LGBT students feel uncomfortable at an institution where their own money pays for their discrimination. But, of course, you wouldn’t care about such trivial things as the oppression of gay people in the US. Matthew Shepard was probably just asking for it, right?

(2) There is no contradiction between my position of not wanting a discriminating institution on campus and being desirous of action in Darfur. Just because I don’t want an institution that discriminates against LGBT people to be invited to this campus doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to the entire institution of the military — just the culture it would bring to Columbia as a result of its current policies. Obviously, keeping the ROTC off campus isn’t going to destroy the US military.

(3) Normal human beings talk about their lives with each other. This means that, as lgbt members of the military develop meaningful friendships with their fellow servicepeople, they will find that they cannot reveal large swaths of their personal lives. The military, by virtue of the way it is organized, is not a mere professional organization. Those who serve together live together, eat together, and die together.

(4) When, as I mentioned earlier, servicepeople are prohibited from talking about large parts of their personal life (imagine how much your heterosexuality is integrated into your life — lgbt servicepeople cannot talk about their girlfriends or boyfriends, their families, their participation in lgbt social scenes, or often even activities that do not conform to gender stereotypes. Sexuality is not something that you can just amputate from the rest of your life.) their fellow servicemembers will trust them less or suspect them of being homosexuals anyway. There have been cases in which suspected homosexuals have been harassed in the military, but have been unable to appeal to their commanding oficer because they will face a dishonorable discharge if they do. Sometimes, this results in permanent physical damage or death. But, you know, who cares, since they’re just gays?

(5) My biggest problem with DADT is that it does not apply equally to all members of the military. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would not be less ideologically problematic for any person who believes in equal rights if it also applied to heterosexuals, so that neither heterosexual nor homosexual (or bisexual) members of the military could talk about their personal lives. However, this is impossible. Given the nature of the military — one in which nothing is private — the only acceptable change in policy would be the forced integration of the military.

To which he replied:

Whoa, whoaa, whoa! I support the ROTC at Columbia and suddenly that makes me a fan of the people who brutally murdered Matthew Sheppard? Are you kidding me?

Guess, what? I’m willing to bet that the cops and even some of the witnesses who helped capture Matthew’s killers were probably no so pro-gay rights either. And yet, they had a duty to uphold the justice and they carried it out. They displayed a loyalty to a higher code that exceeded their personal feelings, something you seem unwilling to do or even respect in others. Even for a young college student, that’s a distinct level of selfishness I sincerely hope you outgrow.

I happen to be a big supporter of gay rightsn especially gay marriage. Would i like to see the military improve its policies toward gays? Sure. Am i willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this relatively minor issue? Of course not!

Let me tell you something else: you and all the other gay rights activists are being used. The university says it’s against ROTC because of the gay policies in the military. If that’s really, really true, how come the Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Jewish organizations are allowed on campus? Each and every one of those groups is explicitly hostile to gay people. And in the case of Muslims, it is actually the LAW to imprison and even execute gay people in many Muslim countries!

Why aren’t you protesting that? Why does CU not ban them?

Because the REAL reason ROTC is banned is because CU is run by a bunch of 60’s radicals who hate the military and always have. They are hiding behind the gay issue and using it to cloak their intolerance.

By the way, I’m Jewish too, and let me tell you something: i happen to know for a fact that there was a lot of anti-semitism in the army during world war two. The men who stormed omaha beach were probably not too jew-loving. But what they did saved the jewish people in the long run. They saved the world from the nazis. I would not have the gall to look at them cross-eyed. In fact, i thank them.

There is no such thing as a perfect hero, but the men and women in the US military are heroes. Shame on you for deciding to hold them to your own relatively puny set of standards before “allowing them to come on YOUR campus.”

In the words of Sgt. Hulka in the film “Stripes,”; Lighten up Francvis! One of these men might save your life some day!

And I retorted:

First of all, not all of the religious groups on campus are so entirely intolerant as you perceive them. I attend weekly shabbat services at the Hillel, and yet I have experienced absolutely no discrimination, nor do I even feel uncomfortable there. In addition, you exhibit extreme ignorance in your characterization of Muslims which I find disturbing at an institution such as Columbia. Simply because the more extreme sects of a religion advocate entirely unacceptable measures does not mean that those who practice the religion on our campus harbor those same radical feelings. And, by the way, I do protest — loudly — the policies of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Second of all, the religious groups on campus are not integrated with the university. They do not offer classes for which students can receive credit, they do not offer financial aid, as well as a wide variety of other things. This is the main difference. While heterosexual Columbia students would be entirely able to receive whatever benefits the ROTC might bring to campus, homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered students would be entirely excluded. Furthermore, to ask us to conceal and lie about our identities in an attempt to receive those benefits is not only unethical — it would be simply impossible for many.

Third of all, the religious groups on this campus are not permitted to prevent anyone from joining on the basis of their sexual orientation. Why? Because of the non-discrimination policies of this University. If the ROTC were to return to campus, they would be in blatant violation of those policies — both because LGBT students would be unable to participate, and because LGBT professors and officers would be unable to serve.

Fourth, the United States military did not invade Germany to save the Jews (nor the Communists, homosexuals, gypsies, Jehovah’s Witnesses, handicapped, and the wide variety of other people who were sent to the death camps). The US invaded because Germany had declared war on us in response to our declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The men and women who fought in WWII fought in defense of their own families. The fact that they saved the Jewish people “in the long run” is merely incidental. Regardless, I, too, thank them. I have an immense respect for men and women who serve in uniform.

My respect for the actual soldiers, however, has not blinded me to the homophobia that is practiced by the military.

How dare you try to shame me for opposing discrimination against LGBT people on this campus? There are no special standards to which I hold people who come to Columbia. When my fellow students decide to invite a homophobic organization to establish itself on campus and integrate itself into the University apparatus, I am entirely within my rights to object loudly.

Indeed, shame on *you*, sir, for telling me to lighten up. As a white, heterosexual, and likely upper-middle-class Jew, when was the last time you actually experienced discrimination? Do you know what it’s like to be legally prevented from doing things? To have people look at you strangely when you hold the hand of someone you love? To have to live in fear for six years or more? To have people tell you, “no, you’re not good enough to fight for your country”. No, no you don’t. So you don’t get to tell me to lighten up when an organization threatens to not only bring all of that back, but have the endorsement of the student body and University.

Leave a comment »

The $43,470 Question

October 28, 2008 · Filed under Commentariat, Election 2008 · Tagged , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

My family is awkward. Not necessarily socially — though that too — but economically. I, like millions of other Americans, fall into the gap between qualifying for financial aid and actually being able to afford a college education without going into massive debt.

One of Barack Obama’s most cherished proposals is the $4,000 tax credit to students. The effect of this proposal on Columbia students, as well as students at most other private institutions, would be minimal. In fact, even if I had attended Rutgers University — a New Jersey state school — I would still be paying $17,000 in tuition each year. If this proposal were to go through, the effect on Columbia University students would be almost inconsequential (we’ll still be paying $39,470).

It is curious, then, why so many college students are so excited about him or why we cheered so loudly when he mentioned his $4,000 tax-credit when he and McCain came to campus.

This is not to say that McCain’s proposals are anything less than pathetic. In fact, where the McCain campaign isn’t ominously silent on the issue of education, it offers platitudes and, ironically, is terribly vague (a complaint made by many about Obama’s proposals). To illustrate my point, allow me to digress, momentarily, into a discussion about a few of McCain’s ideas on education.

Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain doesn’t propose any federal subsidies for higher education. In fact, judging by McCain’s proposal (i.e that the tax benefits are just too darn hard to figure out), the ability of many students to be able to pay for college is impeded by their inability to understand our tax code rather than such silly things as, you know, not having the money. He also calls for “effective reforms” for lending programs and “improving information for parents”. The general take-away from this seems to be that students can’t pay for college not because we do not have the means but rather because we do not have the brainpower.

While some minor party candidates might support free universal higher education, the most likely outcome is that neither free nor cheap education is coming any time soon. It seems that the message from the major party candidates to America’s students is this: just keep hoping your bank doesn’t WaMu.

Comments (1) »

First as Tragedy, Second as Farce

October 26, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Columbia University, Commentariat, LGBT Issues, NY State · Tagged , , , , , ,

This piece ran in the Commentariat, the Spectator opinion blog.

In Armin’s latest opinion piece in the Spec, he seems to imply that the ROTC is a vehicle of freedom of speech. However, his logic is fatally flawed.

First, students are free to join the ROTC program, they simply cannot do so on this campus. As of now, with the ROTC off campus, the rights of students to their freedom of inquiry and conscience remain intact. They are free to associate or not associate with the revered bastion of homophobia and sexsim as they see fit.

Second, he makes the assumption that the University is speaking on “behalf of others”. The wording here is interesting in that this would be correct in either one of two situations: (1) if there were no LGBT members of the Columbia community who might suffer as a result of the re-institution of this program (there are); or (2) if the institution of the University is fundamentally separate from its students and has no obligation to defend them (it isn’t, and it does, respectively).

Tuition at this school is not cheap, as I am sure many are aware, and I don’t pay tuition so that the University might integrate into its apparatus programs that arbitrarily discriminate against either myself or my fellow students. The students — future alumni — are a fundamental part of this institution, and it is for that reason that the institution itself has both reason and obligation to defend its students against an element that would seek to discriminate against them.

If the issue here were the establishment of an ROTC club, I would have far fewer qualms. However, the prospect that money that I pay to this University could be used in a University-sanctioned and and University-integrated program which discriminates me is quite frankly unacceptable. Indeed, I see no reason why the very same rules which apply to student clubs should not apply to entire University departments.

Lastly, in a somewhat unrelated note, I would just like to say that the complacency of so many people in permitting an institution which not only has a history of systematically discriminating against homosexuals, but continues to do so, is nothing short of despicable. I have faith that the very same people who will go and vote in favor of the return of the ROTC would not do so if it discriminated against blacks “just so long as they didn’t force their blackness on everyone” or against women “just so long as no one noticed their breasts”.

The same forces which discriminated against African Americans 50 years ago, the same forces which discriminated — and which continue to discriminate — against women 100 years ago, are the same forces which discriminate against LGBT today. They level the same arguments that racists and anti-miscengation advocates used half a century ago (the battle over gay marriage is the same battle that was fought in Loving v. Virginia), and the same arguments that sexists used in an attempt to keep women out of the military (“it’s not safe for them”, for example).

To those who are considering voting in favor of returning the ROTC to campus, think about it like this: if it were black people who would be prevented from taking part in an entire department at this University, would you vote in favor? If it were Asians? Women? Latinos? Think about this: is it more okay to discriminate against gay people than any other minority?

Comments (1) »

« Previous entries
Next Page »