ROTC and Columbia University's non-discrimination policy

Add 09Dec11: This version was submitted by e-mail in February 2011 to the Task Force on Military Engagement.

Question: Can ROTC, under current law, co-exist on campus with Columbia's non-discrimination policy, as currently written?

My answer: Yes.

Using the non-discrimination policy as the reason for excluding a critical part of society from the University is a dangerous interpretation of the policy. In principle, the non-discrimination policy is meant to promote organic diversity and constructive engagement on campus, and protect inclusion at Columbia, which rightfully includes ROTC along with other critical relationships that may be cast as discriminatory in some aspect, such as a women's college and religions. Advancing the university's higher pedagogical and public service missions through real diversity, engagement, and inclusion will necessitate, at times, some sensitive trade-offs; the non-discrimination policy addresses the friction that may result. Columbia's non-discrimination policy becomes grossly corrupted when it is misused as a tool of exclusion, as has happened with ROTC at Columbia.

Barnard's admissions policy is the clearest example that, when justified by the greater good, lawful accomodations with the non-discrimination policy are made for existing University associations. I believe other similar examples at Columbia can be found. The question is not whether lawful accomodations can be made with the non-discrimination policy, because they already are. The proper question is whether a lawful accomodation is justified for the greater good.

Just as importantly, it does not appear from a plain reading of Columbia's non-discrimination policy that hosting ROTC on campus, under current law, would in fact violate Columbia's non-discrimination policy.

Read COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND STUDENT NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT.

From opening paragraph: Columbia University is committed to providing a learning environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment . . . Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws, it is the policy of the University not to tolerate unlawful discrimination . . .

Key phrasing is "unlawful discrimination". Whatever is one's personal opinion of it, military personnel policy is lawful, not unlawful.

From second paragraph: 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 . . .

Key phrasing is "its [Columbia's] ... policies". Military personnel policy is set by the federal government and is not Columbia's policy. Military personnel policy is limited to a defined jurisdiction.

A distinction can be made between the military's commissioning requirements and the academic program on campus. In order to serve its wider pedagogical function, much of the ROTC program normally is open to the general student body. Other universities that host ROTC with non-discrimination policies similar to Columbia's policy are able to distinguish between university policy and federal policy. President Bollinger, as the former provost of Dartmouth AROTC and former president of UMichigan AROTC, AFROTC, and NROTC, is well-suited to manage the ROTC relationship on campus.

From Definitions: 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.

Lawful accomodations, such as Barnard's admissions policy, do not infringe the protection of a legally "protected class". As a practical matter, ROTC enhances the course offerings for Columbia students, while the addition of ROTC on campus would not subtract nor replace anything that currently exists for students. Nor would ROTC require Columbia to rewrite the non-discrimination policy. "Military status" enumerated as a legally protected class in Columbia's non-discrimination policy also ensures that members of ROTC would be protected and raises the question of the University's responsibility to Columbia's ROTC students.

From Definitions: Discriminatory Harassment - Discriminatory harassment is defined as substantially interfering with an individual's educational experience by subjecting him or her to severe or threatening conduct or to repeated humiliating or abusive conduct, based on his or her membership in a protected class.

ROTC and its manifestations on campus (office, classes, training, etc.) would not be a separate zone on campus that allows discriminatory harassment. ROTC cadre and participating students would be held to the same standards of behavior as all Columbians. Columbia students should feel as safe in ROTC offices as anywhere else on campus.

Post-script:

Task Force,

Due to subsequent feedback, I learned I omitted 2 significant pieces of analysis in my original opinion on ROTC and Columbia's non-discrimination policy:

From opening paragraph: Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws . . .

Key phrasing is "applicable laws". Anti-discrimination laws for ordinary civilian employers have sometimes been cited in the case against ROTC at Columbia. However, for obvious reasons, laws that regulate ordinary civilian employers do not apply to military personnel policy, which is regulated by separate federal statutes and case law.

From third paragraph: Nothing in this policy shall abridge academic freedom or the University’s educational mission.

The superseding provision in Columbia’s non-discrimination policy retains the University's discretion to promote the “University's educational mission” notwithstanding any other provision of the nondiscrimination policy. The University Senate is deciding whether ROTC will be included in the University’s educational mission. While Columbia can decide to exclude ROTC, the same discretion allows Columbia to add ROTC to the University's educational mission without compromise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Original version posted on 15DEC08:

Question: Can ROTC, under current law, co-exist on campus with Columbia's non-discrimination policy, as currently written?

My answer: Yes.

Using the non-discrimination policy as the reason for excluding a critical segment of society from the university is a dangerous interpretation of the policy. The non-discrimination policy is meant to promote organic diversity and constructive engagement on campus, and protect inclusion at Columbia, which rightfully includes ROTC along with other critical relationships that may be cast as discriminatory in some aspect, such as a women's college and religions. Advancing the university's higher educational and public service missions through real diversity, engagement, and inclusion will necessitate, at times, some sensitive trade-offs; the non-discrimination policy addresses any friction that may result. Columbia's non-discrimination policy becomes grossly corrupted when it is misused as a tool of exclusion, as has happened with ROTC at Columbia.

Barnard's admissions policy is the clearest example that, when justified by the greater good, lawful accomodations with the non-discrimination policy are made for existing university associations. I believe other similar examples at Columbia can be found. The question is not whether lawful accomodations can be made with the non-discrimination policy, because they already are. The proper question is whether a lawful accomodation is justified for the greater good.

Just as importantly, it does not appear upon a plain reading of Columbia's non-discrimination policy that hosting ROTC on campus, under current law, would in fact violate Columbia's non-discrimination policy.

Read COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND STUDENT NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT.

From opening paragraph: Columbia University is committed to providing a learning environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment . . . Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws, it is the policy of the University not to tolerate unlawful discrimination . . .

Key phrasing is "unlawful discrimination". Until the DADT law changes, DADT is the law and therefore lawful, not unlawful.

From second paragraph: 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 . . .

Key phrasing is "its ... policies". DADT is a federal law, not Columbia's policy, and is limited to a defined jurisdiction. A distinction can be made between the military's commissioning requirements and the campus academic program. In order to serve its wider pedagogical function, much of the ROTC program normally is open to the general student body, subject to ordinary logistical restraints. Other universities with ROTC on campus and non-discrimination policies similar to Columbia's non-discrimination policy distinguish between university policy and federal policy, for example, MIT. As Johns Hopkins University does with their Army ROTC, Columbia can even take the extra step of supporting ROTC on campus while explicitly objecting to DADT. President Bollinger, as the former provost of Dartmouth AROTC and former president of UMichigan AROTC, AFROTC, and NROTC, should be prepared to manage the ROTC relationship on campus.

From Definitions: 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.

The addition of ROTC on campus would not, as a practical matter, subtract nor replace anything that currently exists for Columbia students nor would it require Columbia to rewrite the non-discrimination policy. "Military status" enumerated as a protected category in Columbia's non-discrimination policy also ensures that ROTC on campus would be protected and raises the question of the university's responsibility to Columbia's ROTC students.

From Definitions: Discriminatory Harassment - Discriminatory harassment is defined as substantially interfering with an individual's educational experience by subjecting him or her to severe or threatening conduct or to repeated humiliating or abusive conduct, based on his or her membership in a protected class.

ROTC and its manifestations on campus (office, classes, training, etc.) would not be a separate zone on campus that allows discriminatory harassment. ROTC cadre and participating students would be held to the same standards of behavior as all Columbians. An LGBT person should feel as safe in ROTC offices as anywhere else on campus.

Eric

Crazy brave soldiers

Washington Post story 10 Green Berets to Receive Silver Star for Afghan Battle hints at an amazing story of bravery in battle. Worth the read.

Buried within the account of the Special Forces troops' experience, this stands out:

A medical evacuation helicopter flew in, but the rotors were immediately hit by bullets, so the pilot hovered just long enough to allow the in-flight medic to jump off, then flew away.

That's right. A medic left the relative safety and escapability of his medical evacuation helicopter, knowing the helicopter was in too much danger and would leave him, in order to join the heavily wounded SF troops on the ground, while they were still under fire. I wonder, was the unnamed medic awarded a medal, too, for his act of duty and selfless service?

Wow. Soldiers.

Eric

Columbia University War Memorial

Pictured is the pin-on red paper rose handed out to guests at the event.


Pictured with the plaque is Marines lieutenant Dan Cross, a fellow GS 07 graduate, who rendered Columbia Class of 2006 Marines lieutenant Mark Xue's first salute.

Last night, I attended the unveiling of the Columbia University war memorial, which will be displayed after New Years in Butler Library in the lobby to the left of the main staircase. The plaque will be accompanied by an interactive information kiosk. The website in the kiosk is accessible on-line.

I found out William V. Campbell, Chair of Columbia's Board of Trustees, is an enlisted Army veteran.

With MilVets and Hamilton Society, the several grassroots efforts for ROTC return in recent years, this memorial, and a newly forming veterans alumni club, it's clear that Columbia's military heritage is making a broad comeback.

Eric

Columbia NROTC vote break-down by school

BWOG announced the by-school breakdown of the NROTC vote by percentage:

CC: NO:53.0% YES:46.8% ABSTAIN:0.2%
SEAS: NO:46.4% YES:53.6% ABSTAIN:0.0%
GS: NO:44.4% YES:55.1% ABSTAIN:0.5%

GS and SEAS both voted for NROTC, which means by school, the vote tied 2 to 2 (Barnard voted against).

For a generalized explanation, Barnard and CC students are more ideological, SEAS students are more pragmatic, and GS students tend to have more real-world experience and a broader perspective. As well, the majority of student-veterans at Columbia attend GS.

The SEAS vote for NROTC is very intriguing because the NROTC initiative originated from SEAS. The Navy is interested in SEAS engineers while Navy career service options suit SEAS students the best; therefore, it stands to reason that NROTC on campus would have disproportionate impact and benefit for SEAS. If SEAS wants NROTC at Columbia and NROTC would benefit SEAS the most, should the university deny the practical benefits of NROTC to SEAS students for ideological reasons?

Eric

80% of Columbia students did not vote against NROTC

Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Okay, I get that, but the Columbia student poll on NROTC is a new body of evidence worth analyzing.

Earlier, from my natural pro-ROTC perspective, I wondered why 57% of CC, GS, and SEAS students declined to vote. I speculated that they weren't convinced to vote against NROTC, but also didn't know enough about NROTC to vote for it, hence my blame of the student councils for failing to produce their promised NROTC information packet. While many of the non-voting students may have abstained for other reasons, and it's worth finding out those reasons, the difference was only 39 votes in an aggregated total. It's not unreasonable to believe 40/3942 additional students would have voted if they had been given better information on the subject.

05DEC08 Update: The student councils also promised to organize 2 forums about NROTC and only held 1 forum. The 1 student council-run forum was dominated by DADT. The 2nd student council-run forum, conceivably, would have been focused on NROTC rather than DADT, and illuminated such topics as Columbia's NROTC history, financial aid, classes and requirements, Naval and Marines officership as career service options, and recruiting. Failing to provide both a 2nd forum on NROTC and the information packet stand out to me as a gross failure by the student councils. While one can argue the Columbia Students for NROTC could have made up the shortfall, the survey was organized by the student councils and they determined the format, which included 2 instructional forums and a comprehensive information packet to be distributed to all students. It is reasonable for CSfNROTC, who were already hard-pressed for resources, to have relied upon the student councils to do what they said they would do and incorporated the 2 forums and information packet into their own planning. Again, with a vote differential of only 39 votes, any oversight by the student councils stands out, and their failure to educate the students about NROTC, as they promised they would, is a major flaw in the conduct of this survey.

Now, I'm wondering why nearly 80% (non vote plus yes vote = 78.27%) of CC, GS, and SEAS students did not vote against NROTC. I assumed in the previous paragraph that more students didn't vote for NROTC because they simply didn't know enough about the program and the case for NROTC. However, that is not an assumption I can ascribe to DADT and the case against NROTC on campus. From President Bollinger's early e-mail, to popular opposition to DADT, to the intense single-note drumbeat about DADT by the impassioned anti-ROTC coalition, to the current student generation's from-birth indoctrination in identity-based rights, we can trust every student understood the opposition to NROTC on the basis of DADT. Yet, 80% of students did not vote against NROTC on that basis, or any basis. Thoughts on why?

The verdict, so far, on the NROTC survey is that it's inconclusive. The aggregate vote for CC, SEAS, and GS students is a virtual tie, the failure to provide a by-school breakdown - particularly for SEAS which originated the interest in NROTC - is a critical oversight [18JAN09 update: SEAS and GS voted for and CC voted against NROTC], there were other notable student council oversights, and nearly 2000 votes were thrown out and have yet to be fully accounted for (more a transparency than conspiracy concern, but 2000 is still a lot). In addition, the high number (57%) of students who chose not to vote and the very high number (nearly 80%) of students who did not vote against NROTC on campus, despite the heavy emphasis placed on DADT, raise new questions.

Eric

How South Park did the election day episode

Via Coed Magazine, here is an IGN interview with Matt Stone, who explains how South Park made the ultra-topical election day episode, which included direct references to election day yet aired the next day. The interview is also worth reading for Stone's insight about how he and Trey Parker think about the show and produce it.

Reading the interview reminds me that serious artists often seem overly modest, even disconnected, when discussing their creative process, to the degree that the vivid art they produce has a life and influence independent of its creator. The explanation, I believe, is that the essential creativity that births art is not really a process at all; it's inspiration, and inspiration is more an impulse or a feeling which can't easily be explained. The craft of art is something else, and that's what artists usually talk about when they explain their art. The craft of art includes the skills, practices, tools and media used to harness formless inspiration into expressed art.

Eric

57% of students didn't vote in Columbia NROTC poll

From BWOG:

We sent out 6913 email invitations, including all CC, SEAS, and GS
undergraduate students. We received 2971 valid votes, representing 43% of the population.

1463 YES, 49.24%;
1502 NO, 50.56%;
6 ABSTAIN, 0.20%.

That means 57% or 3942 of students in CC, GS, and SEAS declined to vote. Why didn't they? It matters when a survey is decided by only 39 votes across the 3 colleges and many more students didn't vote than voted. (By the way, nearly 2000 votes were thrown out, but that's another issue.)

Despite the intense and sustained attention paid to DADT by both sides, 3942 students were not swayed to vote against NROTC on that basis. Why, then, didn't some of those students vote for NROTC? Were they simply dogmatically apathetic or neutral about NROTC and DADT? Or maybe they would have voted, but didn't feel they knew enough about NROTC to make an informed decision.

The student councils were supposed to jointly produce and distribute a comprehensive information packet about NROTC, its history, financial aid, recruitment, etc., to all the students, which they failed to do. I wonder how many of the non-voting students would have voted if they had been given the information packet. Maybe 40?

Eric

Columbia NROTC poll results are in

Columbia Spectator reports the aggregate vote of Columbia College, General Studies, and SEAS as 1502-no to 1463-yes. The separately tallied result for Barnard is 736-no to 453-yes.

The splits for the CC, GS and SEAS polls are unknown because the votes were counted together. That's meaningful because only 39 votes separated yes from no across 3 colleges, so it's possible that 1 or 2 of the 3 college student bodies voted in favor of NROTC.

If the colleges tied 2 to 2, that would be interesting.

Even if only SEAS voted for NROTC, that would also be interesting given that the NROTC initiative came from SEAS. The interest is recipocral - Navy ROTC's interest in Columbia is primarily for SEAS engineers, which means NROTC conceivably would have a disproportionate impact and benefit for SEAS students. If only SEAS students voted for NROTC and the program benefits them the most, would it be fair for their classmates to deny them the opportunity? Again, I don't know that SEAS students voted for NROTC or not, but it would be interesting if they did.

11DEC08 UPDATE: SEAS and GS voted for NROTC. CC and Barnard voted against.

Eric

Waiting for NROTC student poll result

I've spent the last few hours obsessively refreshing on BWOG and the Columbia Spectator hoping they'll post the result of the NROTC poll. The poll was supposed to end on Monday and it is computerized, so the results should be instantly available, right? Apparently not. Latest word is that CC, GS and SEAS know their results, but Barnard is holding their poll open until 9 am today, and the student councils may opt to issue a joint statement around noon.

I've passed the time on youtube. Here's a treat, a young and adorable Lea Salonga with Brad Kane singing "A Whole New World" for the first time in studio, probably in winter of 1991-92 given their sweaters, that the animation was done afterwards, and the movie was released in November 1992:



Eric

Darwinian dating

Love in the Time of Darwinism by Kay S. Hymowitz (h/t Villainous Company) is interesting. I think the author of the article tries hard, comes close to, and circles the mark, but doesn't quite break through to capture an understanding of her subject.

I'll just say this: a mutual relationship is not a juxtaposition of two independent entities, it is an interplay that builds upon itself, which means both the man and woman are more than equally responsible. Each is entirely responsible for the greater whole. Both have to give of themselves. A relationship can be unexpected in many ways, but at the core, there does have to be the same commitment and fidelity shared by both. If the commitment is there for one, but not the other, then there isn't a mutual relationship.

Beyond that, I don't know how it works for women. I've only had the barest taste of falling in love, but enough to know that nothing else I've experienced motivates me to become a better man like falling in love with a woman. For a relationship, a man pulls down the walls protecting his heart, bares himself, and makes himself vulnerable in order to give of himself to the woman he loves. There's anguish when she doesn't join him in the commitment. Further, there's a betrayal of faith when she, rather, seemingly gives of herself to other men whose behavior falls short of his love's standard. When his essential self is rejected, he is forced to evaluate his worth. The man is ready to transform for the relationship and, therefore, highly sensitized to the woman's feedback. Rejection is very compelling feedback, so when she rejects him in favor of something else, the man's instinct is to adapt to the preferences displayed by her. Thus, the woman's choice guides the man's choice. The rest, the player and the game, follows.

Men who've been rejected by the woman they love and have adapted their behaviors are often criticized for being selfish, but it's a painful process to rebuild the walls protecting one's wounded heart. You have to do it, but every time you do, those walls are built thicker and tougher and shut out more light.

Whether or not it's a response to post-feminism, the movement toward Darwinian dating in contrast to the pre-feminist civilized romantic ideal is profound if one considers the man-woman partnership to be the basic building block of human civilization. If we are redefining man-woman relationships now, doing so calls for an evaluation of our social norms and moral obligations.

Eric