Posts tagged rotc

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 »

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 »

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) »

Palling Around With Traitors, Or Those Who Feel One

October 21, 2008 · Filed under Basic Decency, Commentariat, Election 2008, LGBT Issues · Tagged , , , , ,

Long before my letters of acceptance and rejection from universities trickled in, I was sitting in a cafe with my Columbia interviewer – who, herself, had graduated not long ago. She had been a political science major — the same major which I then — and now — intended to pursue. Throughout the interview, one of the most salient features of my life had been my wide-ranging political activism. Not surprisingly, she asked me about it.

Before the interview, I had prepared answers to a wide variety of questions — such as “Why Columbia?” or “How come the Core is so very, very awesome?” — but I suppose this one had not crossed my mind. As I thought about it in the few moments of not-quite-awkward silence that ensued, I realized something.

As someone who comes from an upper-middle-class area of New Jersey, I have often been accused of armchair liberalism or whatever the term for it is these days. But the fact of the matter is that my outrage at various policies — be it the Republican deregulation of the economy or Congressional and executive apathy towards the genocide in Darfur, inevitably stems from two sources.

The first, most likely, is my faith — a bizarre combination of Judaism and Quakerism. I was raised a reform Jew, in a tradition which preaches and practices social equality, justice, and the celebration of differences. My high school education introduced and immersed me in Quaker tradition which resembled my Jewish upbringing in many ways.

The second is my sexuality. As a gay American, I have understood — though perhaps to only a fraction of what many others experience — what it is to feel “othered”, to feel like I don’t belong or that others look down on me.

These two undeniable aspects of who I am — which have thankfully dovetailed well — have led me to a personal ideology that is faith-based, empathetic, and desirous of social, political, and economic justice.

Not long ago I had a discussion with Learned Foote, my class president (2011) and friend, and Gen Liberatore, another friend and member of the class of 2011, about the NROTC controversy. Each of us approached the issue from a very different point of origin.

At the time Learned made some of the same points he recently made in his very well-written opinion piece in the Spectator as well as a variety of others in support of the return of NROTC.

While many of his points are valid I am forced to disagree with him when it comes to his characterization of Columbian opposition to the return of the military to campus.

My opposition to the return of the ROTC is not based on some sort of infantile tit-for-tat schematic, nor do I think that distancing this institution from the military will necessarily force the military to change its policies. My opposition is based in my experience at my Quaker high school, where military recruiters were forbidden to come on campus, where everyone — LGBT people included — was loved and cherished (even the football team — notorious at other institutions for its rampant homophobia — participated annually in various gay rights events), and where notions of social justice prevailed.

Until I arrived on my high school campus, I had remained in the public school system of New Jersey where, though in a heavily Democratic district in a heavily Democratic state, homophobia lurked around every corner and I was terrified almost constantly. I cannot think of a single instance in which I felt secure in my identity. I am proud to say that, today, I feel safe as who I am, and that I attend an institution which affirms that safety.

But my fear is that, should an institution with both an anti-gay culture and anti-gay policy invade this campus, the LGBT community will suffer. It is my fear that we will not be able to feel as safe in our persons or identities and that we will not be able to either feel (or, indeed, be) fully active members of our community. The return of the NROTC will establish, for the first time in a long time, an entire department at this institution where an entire section of our student body cannot participate.

Therefore, it is not out of a belief that we, alone, can change national policy, but rather out of a fear that national policy will change us that I oppose the return of the military to our campus.

Leave a comment »