Posts tagged debate

Smith v. Allwright…alright?

In his last post, Tim makes a number of legitimate points, but seems to have missed the last couple of paragraphs of my original post:

Admittedly, their right to freedom of association does cover their right to be total dicks. Undoubtedly, the fact that they are on private property shields them from the righteous fury of First Amendment scholars everywhere. However, that doesn’t preclude me from: 1. exposing them as total dicks; 2. urgings others to do so; and, most importantly, 3. calling for their tax-exempt status to be rescinded.

I’d take issue with anyone who said otherwise (imagine what would happen if we had to let the Klan into shabbos services!). I suppose this would be a more serious matter if “Liberty” “University” faced any other destiny than to embarrass itself into irrelevancy and oblivion.

However, since I think it’s fun to play with ideas (even those with which I disagree), let’s explore some forum analysis.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

My Personal Crusade Against “Jesus-Camp”

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Congress (admittedly, a while ago) reauthorized the Higher Education Act with a (non-legally binding, unfortunately) amendment:

‘(2) It is the sense of Congress that–

‘(A) the diversity of institutions and educational missions is one of the key strengths of American higher education;

‘(B) individual institutions of higher education have different missions and each institution should design its academic program in accordance with its educational goals;

‘(C) an institution of higher education should facilitate the free and open exchange of ideas;

‘(D) students should not be intimidated, harassed, discouraged from speaking out, or discriminated against;

‘(E) students should be treated equally and fairly;…

With this values in mind, let’s take a look at “Liberty” “University’s” “On Campus Living Guide”:

Curfew
Students are to be in their residence halls each night by curfew. Everyone is asked to be courteous at all times concerning noise. No one is permitted to do laundry after curfew. Curfew hours are:
• Sunday through Wednesday – 12:00 a.m. (midnight)
• Thursday – 10:00 pm
• Friday and Saturday – 12:30 am

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (6) »

The ROTC Debate

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 »

Joe the Plumber and His Precious Autistic Children

Last night’s debate was, quite frankly, the most interesting of the presidential debates thusfar.

This was not because Obama was particularly passionate, not was it because he excelled in any particular area. Rather, the reason was that, quite frankly, John McCain came pretty close to a meltdown.

Throughout the debate, Obama remained calm and relaxed — to use the words of someone else (I can’t remember who at the moment), “cool and professional”. Though Obama has consistently kept his cool during the debates, McCain seemed to get angrier not only from debate to debate, but, last night, moment to moment. At times, his panting and sighing was audible. Even his attempts at smiling seemed mean-spirited (a friend said he “looked like a shark” when he smiled).

Most of the material of the debate was old hat — in fact, some of the exact same lines were used in the last debate — but there was some new material. McCain brought in Ayers and the ACORN scandal, something he avoided last time (perhaps in a failed attempt not to seem like a dick?), but it wasn’t a major theme of the debate, and Obama dealt with both issues deftly and calmly. Overall, there wasn’t really any new, interesting material to be uncovered. So that brings us to style and rhetoric.

Here is where it gets interesting. John McCain was trying to capitalize on Sarah Palin’s folksiness, apparently, but failed miserably. Where he tried to be folsky, he was condescending. An undecided voter interviewed by CNN afterwards said that she found McCain’s storytime — a power so well-used by Reagan (too bad he used it for evil) — while touching the first time around, to be “gimmicky” by the third or fourth time. When McCain brought out “Joe the Plumber” my friends, with whom I was watching the debate, all started yelling at the TV.

One friend mentioned something that I hadn’t thought of, however: McCain was being male-normative. “What the fuck, John?! I’m not Joe!” she shouted. This, of course, was true. The Mac, who — according to CNN live-ratings — was pretty much despised by undecided women throughout the debate, most likely did not benefit from this. This is an age in which Americans need to feel “connected” to their president, and McCain failed horribly at this.

Working-class people, as well, I’m sure, didn’t appreciate John McCain’s discussion of Joe the Quarter-Million-Dollar-Plumber, either.

And speaking of condescension, let’s talk about the “precious autistic children”. Actually…that wasn’t really condescending, that was just creepy. Am I right, or am I right?

In fact, to prove my point, here’s a quote from an article about a CBS poll:

Debate watchers who thought Obama won the debate thought he was a better communicator and has a better grasp of the problems the country has to face. Some used words like “eloquent” and “confident” to describe him. In contrast, some said McCain was defensive and spent too much time attacking Obama – using words like “rude,” “mean,” and “caustic” to describe McCain’s performance in the debate.

By contrast, it seems that most people who thought that McCain won did not have problems with Obama’s character but were either “impressed by [McCain's] experience” or “concerned that Obama’s solutions all required spending money”. This indicates — to me at least — a less fundamental problem for Obama.

Sorry if this post is a little less than coherent at the moment, I just got back from (yet another) midterm, and I’m a little dazed.

Anyway, overall I’d call the debate a tie, if not a marginal win for Obama. But really, all Obama had to do in this debate was tie it, given the lead he’s already established. On the other hand, I’m beginning to be a little concerned with his dipping poll numbers: two days ago, RealClearPolitics had him with an 8.2% lead, yesterday it was 7-something, and today it’s down to 6.9%. If the Democrats want a Senate that can actually do something, they need to reach 60, and the only feasible way for them to do that is to get new senators coming in on Obama’s coattails. It’s now or never, really, because — if he wins — I doubt he’ll have the same power come re-election.

EDIT: Just some quick polls regarding the debate: CBS has a poll of uncommitted voters which has Obama winning the debate with 53% to McCain’s 22%. (25% said it was a draw.) According to this poll, both candidates gained favor among voters, but Obama simply gained by larger margins (overall, that is). Another website has already gathered the polling data for me. A CNN poll has Obama winning with 58%, John McCain winning at 31%. It also has McCain’s favorability rating dropping from 51% to 49%. However, Politic/Insider Advantage gives a much narrower lead to Obama with a 49%-46% split, so there’s clearly some wiggle-room here. We’ll see what happens, I suppose.

Comments (1) »

LIVEBLAGGING NAO

Just to let everyone know, I started liveblogging the debate a few minutes ago. One of my friends tells me that he can’t see it, if it’s not working, press RSS, which should be up.

Leave a comment »