University Senate †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Proposed:








PRESIDENT LEE BOLLINGER:Could I have your attention?I propose to conduct this meeting by moving rather rapidly so that the main issue, on ROTC, is before us and we have sufficient time for debate.Can I have a motion to adopt the agenda?






PRES. BOLLINGER: Wait a minute. Hold on just a second.There is a motion.Is there a second?






SEN. FINDLEY:With all due respect to the Executive Committee, concerning item 8 [the resolution on ROTC], given the great interest in this and the busyness of many peopleís schedules, I would like to propose that you move item 8 up earlier to, say, after the presidentís report and the Executive Committee chairmanís report.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Could I just, the sense of the motion is to have full discussion of this, right?I promise you I will do everything I can to get to this right away.Is that acceptable to you?If itís not, Iíll let you raise the motion again to move it up on the agenda. Okay?Rather than have a discussion now of whether it should be there.Is that all right?


SEN. FINDLEY:I have to leave at 2:30, and I donít want to be disenfranchised.


BOLLINGER:Weíre already taking too much time on this.Weíre in a Catch-22 kind of situation here.Thereís a second.All in favor say aye.




BOLLINGER:Passes unanimously.Adoption of the minutes.Can I have a motion please?








PRES. BOLLINGER:Any discussion?All in favor say aye.




PRES. BOLLINGER:Opposed?Passes unanimously.Iím going to forego the presidentís report except to thank the Senate for its work this year, and Paul Duby for his work.I think the discussion here today is a signóitís all we needóabout the importance of this body to the university.Thatís all I want to say.Paul?




SEN. COILIN PARSONS (STU., GSAS/HUM):Mr. President, can we have questions?Given the brevity of your report and whatís written in the newspapers, I want to ask [inaudible].

PRES. BOLLINGER:Can we come back to this?


SEN. DUBY:Later on.[Cross talk]Weíll have a second part of our report toward the end.




SEN. DUBY:Well, the president already said part of my report, which is to thank the whole Senate.I think we had a very productive year this year.I would like to mention a couple of people.They are, as usual, students who are here only for a relatively short time, and two of them, Nate Walker and Matan Ariel, are going to move on.I want to thank them.It was a great pleasure to serve with them on the Executive Committee.Theyíve done a lot of work this year for Student Affairs.


ANOTHER VOICE:Hear, hear![Applause]


SEN. DUBY:Now sometimes there are also faculty who leave the Senate, and thatís unfortunate, and thatís always a sad, you know, responsibility of me to thank them, and this year Professor Litwak is going to become emeritus in, I think, a few weeks.Now he has been on the Senate for at least a decade.I cannot count more than ten.†† He has been extremely active on the Faculty Affairs, External Relations, and Executive committees, and he has always been the one who would fight for academic freedom, for fair treatment of the faculty and everybody else in the community, and one of the things, for instance, that I recall from External Relations is the work that he did on trying to get Columbia not to buy material done in sweatshops.So, you know, Iím not going to say farewell to him.I guess I will just say au revoir because we all hope weíll see him again.The Faculty Affairs Committee is trying to find a way to have him one of our members, maybe the honorary vice chairman or an honorary chairman, and as a non-senator, which is certainly feasible by the by-laws.Thanks.[Applause]

††††††††††† One more thing, Mr. President.Sorry.Because this year was so busy, it has been very difficult for the staff to keep up with us, and of course I want to thank Tom, Justine and Dan. They did a terrific job, and thanks to them you have all of those papers.[Applause]


PRES. BOLLINGER:We need a resolution on summer powers.Do we need it?






PRES. BOLLINGER:Do you need it read?


HOWARD JACOBSON, PARLIAMENTARIAN:I donít think so.Does everybody know what that means?


SEN. DUBY:We lost it.Sorry.


ANOTHER VOICE:I donít know what it means.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thatís okay.


MR. JACOBSON:It basically authorizes the Executive Committee during the period over the summer to act if necessary in consultation with the, with who?Iím uncertain.


SEN. DUBY:You donít consult with anybody.


PRES. BOLLINGER:To perform the functions of the Senate.


MR. JACOBSON:It basically acts for the Senate, but there are limitations upon that.Itís really keeping some part of the Senate structure in operation over the summer months, and anything they do has to be reported back at the first meeting of the new year.


SEN. DUBY:Let me add that we have been very reluctant to use those powers, except that some of the committees, some of the standing committees, will be working during the summer.So we give them, but they will report also in September.

PRES. BOLLINGER:Itís basically to keep the Senate functioning in the months.All in favor say aye.




PRES. BOLLINGER: Opposed?Passes.


SEN. DUBY:Thank you.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Report of the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investment.Can we have a quick report?Yes,please.




PRES. BOLLINGER:Yup.Thatís great.


PROF. HAILEY:There are copies outside of the agenda that was distributed early in the year and an interim report of the workings of the committee.Weíve evaluated about half of the proposals that we need to go through this year.I point out that so far this year the agreement of the committee with the Trustees has been 100 percent.I should point out that this is an advisory committee. Therefore the decisions reside with the Trustees.However, I think the Senate should look on this agreement as not an example of the committee supinely going along with the Trustees, but rather the fact that the Trustees have considerable respect, I think, for the opinions of the ACSRI committee and therefore are acting accordingly.

††††††††††† We have about 30 or 40 more proposals to review, which weíll do over another three meetings over the next few weeks.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thank you very much.[Applause]Weíre applauding brevity today. [Laughter]Thank you very much.

Resolution to Establish the Institute of Jewish and Israel Studies.

SEN. LETTY MOSS-SALENTIJN (TEN., SDOS; CHAIR, EDUCATION COMMITTEE):Again I am trying to be very brief.The resolution is before you.It comes moved and seconded by the Education Committee.There is a supporting document explaining the reasons for this particular resolution, and I hope that we can vote on this expeditiously.


PRES. BOLLINGER: Thank you.Do we have a motion?Itís moved.Itís seconded.Any discussion?All in favor say aye.




PRES. BOLLINGER:All opposed. . . .Letty, you get a hand of applause too.[Applause]Pat Grieve [chair of the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct], the pressure is on.I think that was under ten seconds.So whereís Pat?Okay.So weíll come back to that if Pat comes.We now go on to Old Business, the Resolution to Establish a Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at Columbia University.The motion, I think everybody has before you?Is that correct?Everybody has the resolution?I wonít read it.Paul Duby will explain how this arrived here on behalf of the Executive Committee, and then Nate Walker and Jim Applegate will open the discussion.Paul?


SEN. DUBY:Yes.Thank you.Most of the last meeting of the Executive Committee was devoted to the discussion and the writing of such a motion, and I think I had mentioned to the Senate before that the Executive Committee will take the responsibility for that resolution.Now the Task Force [on ROTC] had reported before that they were evenly divided, five to five, whether or not to recommend the return of the ROTC.They had a 9 to 0 and 1 abstention, if I recall correctly, on another resolution, but then there was some discussion about the wording.They changed that wording, and they came back with a 6 to 4.

††††††††††† Now the Executive Committee looked at the resolution that they were preparing, and that was a resolution that was indicating that Columbia would approve ROTC on the condition that the policies of the Department of Defense be changed, and that the Donít Ask, Donít Tell [policy] be abolished.Now that was a resolution with an unclear future, in that we were waiting for something that may or may not happen, and we were in fact committing the Senate and the University to some action in the future that probably we would like to discuss again in that situation.

††††††††††† Some people also had mentioned that there might be political and legal consequences of publicizing such a resolution.So we decided that there should be a resolution which is clear, unambiguous, and that people will have the responsibility to vote either for or against.There are, indeed, many situations where a decision like that is difficult, and Iím sure many of us will have a difficult time deciding.But it doesnít mean that we cannot decide.We have to take our responsibilities, and indeed make a decision, and itís up to the whole Senate to make that decision at this time.

††††††††††† Let me add again, because that may not have been clear enough, and [because of] what some of the e-mails that were circulated [said], that the Executive Committee did not discuss the merits of that resolution.In other words, we didnít have a vote whether weíre for or against.Each of us will make his or her own decision.

††††††††††† So if there is any question about the Executive Committee or other aspects of the procedure, I can certainly answer that.Let me add one more thing.There was a possible amendment that has been circulated, and the Executive Committee feels that this is not a friendly amendment.So it will have to be presented to the assembly and voted on if the sponsor wants to move on with it.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.Thank you, Paul.Thank you.Letís proceed to debate.We need a second probably, donít we?




PRES. BOLLINGER:Do we have a second to the resolution?




PRES. BOLLINGER:You moved the motion.Or the Executive Committee moved the motion?


SEN. DUBY:No, the Executive Committee moves the motion.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Moves the motion.Yes, absolutely.Now, just to clarify.When this issue came up almost two years ago, we in the administration, central administration, took the position that this is something that should arise out of the community itself, and [that it would be] appropriate for the Senate to be the body that organizes the discussion and comes to some kind of conclusion about this.Thatís how it got to this particular point.I want to express the gratitude of all of us for the very thoughtful and careful way in which the Senate and the Task Force and the community have gone about this.

††††††††††† Iíve also said that this is something that, if this were to pass, the administration would have to come to an analysis, a judgment and a recommendation as to how this would actually be implemented or whether we would in fact support it, and then it would be taken to the Trustees for final resolution.

††††††††††† Nate and Jim.


SEN. JAMES APPLEGATE (TEN. A&S/NS):Thank you very much.My name is Jim Applegate.Iím a professor of astronomy here, and I am one of the co-chairs of the Task Force on ROTC.I think by now most of you know that I support the return of ROTC to Columbia.Before I start I will say that there are certain advantages to being known as a supporter of the return of ROTC to Columbia.The one that has been most relevant over the last week is that if you look carefully at the rather large amount of e-mail that you have gotten on this issue, youíll notice that my name has conveniently been removed from that list.So my spam has mostly been about other things, not this issue.

††††††††††† On this issue, nonetheless, I would say that this began about two years ago as a student- authored proposal written by a number of undergraduates, some of whom are ROTC cadets and some of whom have already served in the military and are here after being discharged.I got involved in this about a year ago, and it has undoubtedly been one ofóif not the mostóinteresting things Iíve done in university governance since I came to Columbia twenty years ago.

I support it.The Armed Forces of the United States are an essential, permanent and unique part of our country, and the maintenance of those Armed Forces is the collective responsibility of all Americans.The argument in favor of ROTC is really quite simple.The United States and the world is far better off if the people who run our military, our officers, our leadership, are the best educated that they can possibly be.

††††††††††† Columbia University is a premier educational institution. We educate leaders in many, many fields of human endeavor from law to medicine to science to the humanities and the arts.We stopped educating military leaders over three decades ago when ROTC was kicked off campus during the Vietnam War, in a long-bygone era.It has now come back, and we are considering its return.

††††††††††† I believe the arguments in favor of its return outweigh the arguments in favor of its leaving.The arguments in favor of its return are clear.We need the best-educated leaders we can get, and we are in a unique position to provide those.

††††††††††† The arguments that oppose it largely focus around Donít Ask, Donít Tell, and the Universityís non-discrimination policy.And here I think the choice is rather clear as well.Do we want to participate or do we want to sit on the sidelines?I should point out right now that none of the ten members of the Task Force, nor any of the hundreds of people who have responded in town hall meetings or e-mails on both sides of the issue, supports Donít Ask, Donít Tell.All feel that it is bad policy and fundamentally wrong.We are not disagreeing about a moral issue.We are not disagreeing about issues of principle. We are rather disagreeing about strategy and tactics.

††††††††††† Those of us who voted in favor of the return of ROTC feel very simply that the single most powerful agent of change that Columbia can provide on this issue is Columbia-educated leaders for the military.The opponents feel that the most effective thing that Columbia can do is to sit on the sidelines and boycott.I would argue that universities effect change when they are at their best and they do what we do best, and that is to engage the world and teach and educate.We in fact largely make ourselves irrelevant when we decide to shun other people and boycott.Or as someone once put it, If you donít play the game, you donít get to make the rules.

††††††††††† In closing I would say that maintenance of our Armed Forces is a collective responsibility of all Americans. We can shun a private contractor, but we cannot shun the Armed Forces.Shunning the Army is a decision that we as a private institution are free to make.It is a decision that the country collectively is not free to make.I believe it is a decision that we should not make, and it is time for us to welcome ROTC back. Thank you.[Applause]


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thank you, Jim.Nate.


SEN. NATHAN WALKER (STU., TC):Good afternoon.My name is Nathan Walker, and itís been an honor to serve as a co-chair of the ROTC Task Force. Before I begin, I want to add to the official records of this debate the 1000 undersigned signatures from students, faculty and alumni that oppose the immediate return of ROTC.[Applause].This is in addition to the 600 signatures that were presented at the last meeting, and as you know from the report of the ROTC Task Force, there is also a pro-ROTC petition of 500 signatures that was submitted last year.

††††††††††† Before I begin an analysis of this case, I want to thank each of you individually for your formal and your informal mentorship through the last three years.There have been moments when youíve come up to me and said, ďNate, you really blew it in that e-mail.ĒOr, ďYeah, Nate, thatís a good idea, but think about the unintended consequences.Ē These teachable moments have shaped the way that I think about the task at hand: Should Columbia University immediately reinstate a Reserve Officer Training Corps?

††††††††††† In answering this question, I pulled from a very simple lesson that I have learned as I have served on this body: Nate, find ways to situate ideas against ideas.This will keep you from pitting one person against another person, and allow you to discover not who is right, but what is right.This was the essential principle that has led the Task Force throughout its deliberations to try and find a middle ground, a compromise, and a powerful and unified position.Unfortunately, Iím afraid that we have failedyou.The resolution that comes to this body regrettably situates us in an inherently dualistic debate.

††††††††††† I have heard via phone calls and through e-mails that many of you are concerned that if you vote in favor of this resolution, you may be portrayed as being against the Universityís non-discrimination policy. I have heard from others who are tired of being called unpatriotic, freeloaders, and elitists for voting against this resolution.In response to these concerns, Iíll make three very simple points.

††††††††††† First, it is not unpatriotic to affirm human rights.[Applause]On the contrary, to deny someone their right to serve in the military, to discharge over 10,000 U.S. citizens because of their identity, is an act of bigotry.Invidious governmental discrimination is the ultimate betrayal of patriotism.It is false to challenge oneís loyalty when making a commitment to human rights, which go beyond boundaries of any nation.

††††††††††† Second, it is unanimous that the military is in desperate need of reform, not simply because of its discriminatory policies, but because of its countless disregard for human decency.I do believe that Columbia graduates will continue to uphold these principles and continue to lead the military and continue to participate in the leadership in this country in all ways that are available to them.Unfortunately, some continue to argue that a vote no on this resolution will mean that you are voting no to our troops.This position pits people against people.Rather, opponents to this resolution know the difference between a citizen soldier and an Ivy graduate who happens to be the nationís commander in chief.

††††††††††† Third, if our goal is truly to situate ideas against ideas, then the question remains:Is it urgent to immediately reinstate ROTC?To answer this we must examine the merits of the case.As you know, there are two regional ROTC programs that train students from 50 area post-secondary institutions.The New York City Army ROTC program currently enrolls four Columbia students, who are eligible to receive up to $17,000 a year for their Columbia tuition.The Air Force ROTC currently enrolls five Columbia students who are eligible to receive over $30,000 a year.These programs can enroll dozens more Columbia students, and for some reason Columbia students are choosing not to enroll.

††††††††††† As you know, students who are admitted to Columbia are granted need-blind financial aid packages. This means that if theyíre not able to pay, then Columbia will grant them institutional aid. Therefore no studentóno studentóis denied access to the University because of lack of funding.On the contrary, low-income students not only receive institutional aid, but all Columbia students have the choice of signing an advanced contract with the U.S. military through our affiliate programs, but for some reason theyíre not.

††††††††††† Furthermore, it is not a hardship for students to take the #2 train and participate in the extracurricular activity which is seven miles from this campus, especially when they are motivated to potentially receive over $120,000 in funding in the next four years.The leaders of these ROTC programs are enthusiastically calling for dozens more Columbia students.Why are they not enlisting?The evidence is also clear that it is more elite of Columbia to have its own private ROTC program when none of the 50 area schools have their own.According to Colonel Bob Ciola of the Air Force ROTC program which is housed at Manhattan College, ďThe opening of a detachment at Columbia University may necessitate the closure of another and would not allow the optimal use of limited resources.The Air Force is not planning to open,Ē as he says, ďany new detachments except in areas where a large minority population is present and is not currently served.Ē

††††††††††† Therefore, the immediate reinstatement of ROTC should threaten, could potentially threaten, the financing of regional programs, in turn threatening students in schools who do not benefit from guaranteed need-blind admissions and financial aid.

††††††††††† Finally, it is self-evident that the militaryís discriminatory policies violate our commitment to non-discrimination.So what are the unintended consequences of voting in favor of this resolution?A yes vote grants the Department of Defense abstention from our own non-discriminatory policies.

††††††††††† In summary, there is no urgency for the immediate reinstatement of ROTC.There is not a demonstrated need.Only nine students currently participate.These students have ample sources of funding. Columbia, as it is participating in these programs, maintains its commitment to train military leaders.No one is currently being disenfranchised from this very noble profession.My hope is that you will vote on the merits of the evidence and not on the ideology previously presented.

††††††††††† Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I trust that you will continue to situate ideas against ideas, which is a simple way to advance the way that we live and learn together.[Applause]

††††††††††† As a voting member of this body, I move that we have a record vote as articulated in Section 4 of the University Senate By-Laws, that articulates the rules and procedures.This states that if one-third of you who are voting members agree to have a record vote, it will then permit the Senate staff to issue a piece of paper where your name, school and vote will be counted.This is to insure the accuracy and the transparency of this vote.Is there a second to this motion?


PRES. BOLLINGER:So that we have a motion on the floor to make this a record vote.Now record vote is defined in the following way: ďBy a one-third vote of the members present and voting, a written and signed ballot may be taken on substantive questions.[He then repeats for emphasis: A written and signed ballot may be taken on substantive questions].Tellers will make an immediate count of the votes and after the result has been announced the secretariat will proceed to register the individual membersí votes for release at the end of the meeting.Ē




PRES. BOLLINGER:You with me?That has been moved and seconded.Is there any discussion?Are we ready to vote?


SEN. SUZANNE BAKKEN (TEN., NURSING):Iím just wondering whether or not the staff are prepared for a record vote.I would hate for the vote not to occur today.[The staff member holds up a sheaf of slips of paper for recording the vote; laughter and applause]


PRES. BOLLINGER: Further discussion.[Laughter]Are you ready to vote?It takes one-third for this to pass.


TOM MATHEWSON, SENATE SECRETARY:There are 75 senators present, that I count.So they need twenty-five votes.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.All in favor of a record vote please raise your hands. [Pause]I hereby declare that there is a third of seventy-five. Twenty-five votes is required .There will be a record vote.[Applause]Thatís it. Weíre done on that.The floor is now open for discussion.I would ask that any indications of approval or agreement or disagreement not extend beyond a few seconds if possible so that we make sure that we have as full and rich a debate as we possibly can.Yes.Sir.


SEN. MICHAEL ADLER (TEN., BUS.):I want to request permission for a current student to speak. How do I do that?


MR. MATHEWSON:A non-senator.


PRES. BOLLINGER:How do we do that?[Cross talk]For a non-senator to speak, apparently unanimous consent is required.


SEN. ADLER:The gentlemanís name is Scott Stewart.

PRES. BOLLINGER:Letís have this person [another person, who had walked down the center aisle to the standing microphone] speak first.


MR. MATHEWSON:This is not a senator either.


THE PERSON AT THE STANDING MICROPHONE:Iím not a senator.Iím a student.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.Iím afraid the debate or the discussion is only open to senators, and does somebody, does a senator have to propose someone or does somebody just walk forward and sayó


THE PERSON AT THE STANDING MICROPHONE:I was wondering if I could ask a question.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Hold on, please.


MR. JACOBSON:The Senateís rules provide that to suspend the rules, which do restrict people who can speak to senators and certain other specified people, like people on a committee or the Task Force, the Senate cannot do so if there is objection, except by a three-fifths vote of all incumbent members.


PRES. BOLLINGER:All incumbent?


MR. JACOBSON:Yes.So basically we could get into that.I mean we have enough people here, I guess, the three-fifths.


PRES. BOLLINGER:I would think we would wantóLet me just propose a way so we get into the discussion.I would propose that the SenateóI would guess that the will of the Senate is to restrict the discussion to senators until such point that we may then want to open it up to non-senators who are here.And Iíll leave it to anyone, any senator, to raise that point and then weíll deal with it then.All right?So at this point weíre limited to senators for discussion.Ready?Sam.


SEN. SAMUEL SILVERSTEIN (TEN., HS):I would like to offer the amendment that Paul Duby indicated.Arthur Karlin and I offer this amendment because we feel that the Senate resolution, the Executive Committee resolution as drafted, essentially does a disservice to many of us.The Senate resolution as drafted requires us to vote for or against returning ROTC to the campus, but omits one of the crucial conditions that we believe should be in that resolution.

††††††††††† I view my role as a faculty member here as one of trying to make opportunities for students, not to remove opportunities from students.And so on that basis ROTC certainly represents an opportunity.On the other hand, I view my role as a member of this community as one of upholding its anti-discrimination regulations and policies, which I view very strongly and positively.And so when those two come into conflict, it seems to me that the anti-discrimination policies trump those of opportunities that any organization might wish to bring.

††††††††††† I am not against the military.I served in the military, and this is not about being pro-or anti-military.This is about what rules we have here at Columbia University that we enforce in terms of anti-discrimination.

††††††††††† Finally, never discussed here are two cases: now one before the Supreme Court and a second likely to come before the Supreme Court.†† The first is FAIR vs. Rumsfeld and the second, Burt vs. Rumsfeld, which look at the Solomon Amendment and its enforcement of what I consider onerous and, we hope, unconstitutional efforts by the government to force universities to do things they do not want to do.It seems to me it would be a slap in the face of all those who have brought these suits, and who have succeeded in the Third and Second Circuits in finding that the Solomon Amendment does indeed abridge freedom of speech the way the Department of Defense is trying to enforce it.It would be a slap in the face at this point for this university to pass a resolution that accepted ROTC on this campus and under the conditions which we are forced to do so.

††††††††††† And so the amendment is very simple.It simply says that we would add a further clause to the conditions under which ROTC can come back to Columbia, and that clause would be [that] ROTC must provide written agreement to comply in spirit and in practice with Columbia Universityís non-discrimination policies with respect to recruitment and retention of Columbia students and staff.You have a copy of that amendment and I believe it was distributed by the secretary to all members of the Senate.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Samóthereís a second to that?Sam, just a question for clarification for the Senate.Do you intend, as this appears to say, that they only need agree to eliminate Donít Ask, Donít Tell with respect to Columbia students and staff?


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:No, well, since this amendment essentially deals with the conditions under which they may return to Columbia University, I donít think we are in the process of legislating for the world here.I think weíre in the process of legislating for the University per se.And so I would restrict it to Columbia students and staff.Thatís what weíre voting on.


PRES. BOLLINGER:So just to be clear for everybody, if the military said, We will agree, weíre going to continue to apply Donít Ask, Donít Tell generally, but we agree not to apply it to Columbiaówhich I recognize is very unusual, very unlikelyóbut if that were the case, that would comply with this?


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:It also says retention.


PRES. BOLLINGER:No, I understand.I understand.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:So itís not just recruitment, but itís retention.It seems to me that that makes the military on this campus an equal opportunity employer, and I donít believe I have a vote right now on whether the military should be a worldwide equal opportunity employer.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thank you, Sam.I just wanted to make sure.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Iíd be glad to answer any other questions while Iím here.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Letís see if there is a second.Letís hold on.There is a second.So itís open for discussion on the amendment.

SEN. ARTHUR KARLIN (TEN., HS):[Mostly inaudible; the point is that the amendment is concerned not so much with Donít Ask, Donít Tell, an administrative measure, as with the underlying discriminatory policy]


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:I thought, let me just be clear on this.I donít mean to obscure this.I thought what we were saying is that we require any organization that comes to our campus to subscribe to our non-discrimination policy, which is absolutely crisp and well thought out.


SEN. KARLIN:[inaudible].


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Weíre not making any.


PRES. BOLLINGER:All right.Any questions, points of information for Sam?Points of information.Yeah.


SEN. MATAN ARIEL (STU., GS):How is this different from the resolution that was brought forth by the Task Force and rejected by the Executive Committee?Isnít it saying, in other words, Weíll only accept ROTC if these policies change?I donít understand the difference.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:There is a clear choice this body has to make.


MR. MATHEWSON: Can you come to the mike, Sam?


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:As worded, the Executive Committeeís resolution, if voted down, requires that we say to ROTC, Youíre not welcome here.I donít have any feelings that ROTC shouldnít be welcome here.As far as Iím concerned, this is an opportunity for Columbia students.ROTC ought to be welcome on this campus.The military is an essential part of this country, and we need a strong defense.There is no argument with any of that.But the military may not come here and take our non-discrimination policies and turn them upside down.That is a condition that we ought to force the military to refuse to accept.Itís not our business to reject the military.Itís not our business to accept the military.It is our business to say under what conditions the military may be on this campus.And for that reason I offer this amendment.I would be perfectly happy to vote for the resolution once this amendment is included, and in fact then it is up to the military to decide whether they want to come here.The shoe should not be on our foot.It ought to be on the militaryís foot.We are essentially welcoming of all those who support the goals of this university, and one of the goals is stated very clearly.We have a policy of non-discrimination, and we shouldnít back down.[Applause]


SEN. ADLER:As I wrote to Prof. Silverstein last night, I wish that your amendment were possible because I think we would all back it for itself.The trouble is that the amendment is an invitation to the Department of Defense to break current law, and therefore, in my view, probably constitutes provocation of the Secretary of Defense, who is thereafter more likely than less likely to apply the Solomon Amendment provisions to us.And I think that would be undesirable, even though I predict that that will happen this fall when the Solomon Amendment, [according to] the best legal advice that Iíve been able to get, is upheld by the Supreme Court.

††††††††††† I wish that you would withdraw the amendment because itís a provocation.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:The wisest course for this university to take would be to table this issue.Youíre absolutely right because it is a provocationówhichever way this issue is decided here, we are provoking unnecessarily a problem that we donít need.Whether or not the Supreme Court makes the decision to uphold FAIR v. Rumsfeld or overturns FAIR vs. Rumsfeld, whether or not the Supreme Court decides to uphold Burt vs. Rumsfeld or overturn it, there will be forces that try to rewrite the Solomon Amendment and to create yet further mischief.I have no doubt that thatís true.And therefore the Executive Committeeís wisest course in this whole fracas would have been to table this until these suits are solved, and not single Columbia University out for any particular retribution or action.But the Executive Committee did not choose to do that.I would be perfectly happy to withdraw this amendment and cease fire, if you like, if we tabled this whole issue, waited till FAIR v. Rumsfeld and Burt v. Rumsfeld are finished, and then decide what in the best interests of the University we as a faculty and set of students ought to do.

††††††††††† But that is not the position we find ourselves in today.So if there is a majority here that would like to table this, I would be perfectly happy to step asideóI see that as a very thoughtful, and perhaps the most thoughtful, way of dealing with this issueóand call it a day.

SEN. ROBERT POLLACK (TEN., A&S/NS):Just as a point of information, what are the rules for doing that?What are the rules for tabling an Executive Committee motion?


PRES. BOLLINGER:There can be a motion to table, which is non-debatable, a majority vote.And thatís the end of it.


ANOTHER VOICE:Move tabling the vote.


SEN. POLLACK:Second tabling the vote.[Cross talk]


PRES. BOLLINGER:Hold on just a second before we getówe have a motion on the table and we have an amendment to that motion on the table.And then, so if you haveóhold on just a second, donít get out of control here.


MR. JACOBSON:The original motion is really a resolution thatís been moved.The motion, I think the motion, thatís the issue I donít knowóthe motion to amend.


PRES. BOLLINGER:But you can have a motion to table the original one at any point.


MR. JACOBSON:Yes, yes, at any point.




MR. JACOBSON:The original resolution can be tabled at any point.


PRES. BOLLINGER:So this would be a motion to table the resolution.And it would be non-debatable and would simply happen.Okay?So, is there a motion?


SEN. POLLACK:Do we have to record that vote?


PRES. BOLLINGER:No.Record.No.Are tabling votes within the record vote?Howard?

MR. JACOBSON:I donít believe so.But thatís notóthe record vote, I think, is meant for substantiveó


ANOTHER VOICE:This is procedural.


PRES. BOLLINGER:That will be the interpretation the chair will give to the clause on record votes.All right?†† Thereís a motion to table?


ANOTHER VOICE:Motion to table what?


PRES. BOLLINGER:The resolution, the original resolution.Unconditionally.Is there a second?




PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay, now I justóyou can have points of information, but itís not debatable.


ANOTHER VOICE:Just make it clear to people once again what theyíreómany people are unclear aboutó


PRES. BOLLINGER:The motion is to table the original resolution coming from the Executive Committee.That resolution proposes return of ROTC to Columbia.So the motion to table applies to that.It has a second, it is non-debatable, and weíre interpreting this as not requiring a record vote.


ANOTHER VOICE:When are the votes, the Supreme Court?


PRES. BOLLINGER:We donít know.Probably nextó


ANOTHER VOICE:The question is irrelevant to the motion.

ANOTHER VOICE:Itís not irrelevant to the tabling motion at all because the tabling motion was made in respect toó


PRES. BOLLINGER:It would be sometime in the next academic year.

SEN. ADLER: Is there a time limit? Is it indefinite?


PRES. BOLLINGER: I think the tabling simply puts it on the shelf of the Senateís agenda, and it can be brought back at any point in time.


SEN. ADLER:By whom?


PRES. BOLLINGER:By any senator moving to take it off the table.


MR. JACOBSON:Right, and then there would be a vote at that point.So itís the sense that the Senate will not debate and consider the issue now.


ANOTHER VOICE:So letís vote.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Any other points of information?I want to make sure people understand.Only senators.Senator.


ANOTHER VOICE:Itís just a question.If during the summer recess, this would not fall under the ongoingó? [Laughter]


PRES. BOLLINGER:You can count on that one.[Laughter]When you come back in September, you will not find a vote has been taken.

Make sure itís not debate.


SEN. ADLER: [Pauses; laughter]No, Iím going to simply say that as a representative of the people who sponsored the resolution, it is probably the case that we take it as in the interest of the University that we table for now.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.Thatís terrific. Thank you. All right.Are you ready?All in favor raise your hands.[Pause while hands are being counted]All opposed to tabling.[Pause while hands are being counted]Abstentions?


MR. MATHEWSON:Please raise them high.Are you abstaining?


PRES. BOLLINGER:The motion to table fails.[Applause]The votes on the motion to table are 29 for, 36 against, and 3 abstentions.We are back to the amendment to the resolution.The amendment is before you.It is open for further discussion.


SENATE STAFF:Identify yourself?


SEN. REBECCA BALDWIN (STU., NURSING):My name is Rebecca Baldwin.Iím from the School of Nursing.Iíd like to speak in favor of the amendment.In evaluating this question, I went back and forth a lot about my personal feelings about the military, my personal feelings about Donít Ask, Donít Tell, and I kept coming to the reality that I was not simply voting on a personal level, I was voting as a representative of the University, the institution as a whole.And so, well, individuals have the opportunity to participate in ROTC and make their personal decision about whether or not they can live comfortably with existing military policies; we as an institution have a different decision to make.†† Do we as an institution work to make a marriage with another institution that has a diametrically opposed policy?And that to me is as simple as it gets.Itís not about whether or not I believe in individual rights.Itís not about whether or not the military should function the way it functions.Itís about what does our institution do in conjunction with another institution.And unless we can find a way to make a marriage between those two institutions, we canít make one.

††††††††††† I feel that this proposal for an amendment made by Professors Silverstein and Karlin addresses that question.I would be surprised if the military would sign on the dotted line to that statement, but thatís their problem.What we will do is say, Come here under our circumstances.Come to my house, follow my rules, and until you do, go away.If theyíre willing to come to our house and follow our rules, Iíll open my doors.This amendment makes it possible.Thank you.[Applause]


SEN. JOHN BRUST (TEN., HS):I have another question for Professor Duby.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Paul, you have a question.


SEN. DUBY:Oh, Iím sorry.


SEN. BRUST:You used the rather vague phrase ďlegal implicationsĒ as the reason why the Executive Committee did not itself include something like the Silverstein-Karlin amendment.And were you thinking in terms of these two court cases or wereyou thinking in terms of something else?


SEN. DUBY:Well, I guess the court case at least was on some of [our] minds.I cannot speak for everybody about that.But the main thing is that we wanted a clear and unambiguous vote, and that voteóof course we donít expect the Army to sign anything; we donít expect the Army to accept those conditions.We expect that the Army may be willing to accept some of the academic conditions because thatís what they have done at other places like Princeton, Penn, MIT, and Iím sure that those schools also have non-discriminatory policies.

††††††††††† Now another point that was made is the one that was made just a few minutes ago, that there may be some retribution if indeed the Solomon Amendment is upheld, because it would be kind of a red flag to the Army and the Department of Defense.Those were the two aspects.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.Let me get some differentóJim.


SEN. JAMES NEAL (ADMIN.):Could you please read the amendment?


PRES. BOLLINGER:ďROTC must provide written agreement to comply in spirit and in practice with Columbia Universityís non-discrimination policies with respect to recruitment and retention of Columbia students and staff.Ē


SEN. NEAL:May I ask a question about the resolution?Does that by definition mean that a graduate of Columbia who goes on to work in the military would then be subject to Donít Ask, Donít Tell, and then could be put out of the military?


PRES. BOLLINGER:I think the purpose of the amendment is to insist upon an agreement from the government that any Columbia student who is taken into ROTC at any point in time cannot be discriminated against on the basis of something that would violate our non-discrimination policies.Sam, is that correct?


SEN. NEAL:While they are students and while they are in the military.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thatís what I think I understand the amendment to mean, and Sam agrees.Yes.


SCOTT OLSTER (NONSEN., STU., GS; TASK FORCE MEMBER):My name is Scott Olster and Iím a member of the ROTC Task Force. I feel that, while I understand the sentiment expressed in this amendment, the problem with it is, we as an institution need to ask ourselves responsibly whether it is socially responsible to invest in an organization that has a policy that is inconsistent with our anti-discrimination policy.As much as this amendment will potentially solve the issue within the confines of our own community, I feel it is inconsistent with the ideals of this university as a public institution, not necessarily public in the sense of [a state institution], but public institution in the sense that it is responsible to our community.So it would be inconsistent with our charge to accept an amendment like this because you cannot control [inaudible] in the same way.While I truly feel for this amendment, it would not be appropriate for the Senate to accept it because we have this responsibility.It is the responsibility of the University Senate today to make a decision about the ROTC as it stands, and make a decision about our relationship with the ROTC and its current policy and our policies.So I ask the Senate to take those particular issues into account.[Applause]


SEN. POLLACK:I support Sam and Arthurís amendment on the point of retribution.I support it because it seems to me we have no authority over the federal government.We are its servant and we are its beggar in terms of our funding, but we have control over our own ability to exert retribution on our own people, and to accept the resolution would be to invite retribution on some of our students and staff, and I cannot as a citizen of this place support that.


SEN. CHRISTOPHER DAVIS (ADMIN. STF., HEALTH SCIENCES):I had thought that all the Executive Committeeís resolution really amounted to was allowing ROTC an exemption from the Universityís non-discrimination policy.Thatís what itís about.This organization, itís OK to have it on the University campus, and it doesnít have to follow our policies, and I donít like that at all, and so I support that amendment completely.


SEN. RALPH HOLLOWAY (TEN., A&S/SS):What would be some of the retribution?




SEN. POLLACK:. . .óopenly gay cannot have access to this privilege.[Cross talk]


SEN. HOLLOWAY: Iím talking about the retribution against the University. Thatís what I would like to hear about.


PRES. BOLLINGER:I think the question is, To what extent will the resolution, if rejected by the Senate lead to ďretribution against the UniversityĒ?Is that the question?


SEN. HOLLOWAY: My question is, If we accept the amendment, as people have already been discussing, [there may be] retribution that would face the University. I am interested in learning what would be some examples of the retribution the University would be facing.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Iím sorry.So just to get, make sure everybody hears the question.What retribution would follow if the amendment is passed?Do you, Sam, do you want to answer this as the. . . .?


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Well, I think we are in agreement. Why doesnít my colleague who is for ROTC go ahead? I yield the floor to him.


SEN. ADLER:I believe that the main threat that the federal government has to enforce upon us is the withdrawal of our federal grants.I believe that they made such a threat in connection with the military recruiting at the Law School, and I think they hard-balled that threat and we backed up.And there is military recruiting at the Law School because the threat was made to sound real.I think that could happen again, and I think weíre in their gun sights.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Can I then add a couple of things?The Solomon Amendment, as amended repeatedly by the Congress, is an extremely onerous amendment.It says that the Secretary of Defense in his discretion can withhold funding from all parts of a university, all parts, if any one part of that university decides not to comply with the access of the military to campus.Now the law schools of this country, especially Yale, which is the plaintiff in Burt, and a consortium of law schools, who are the plaintiffs in FAIR, have said that that compels speech which they do not agree with.The Second and Third Circuits have agreed with plaintiffs in these cases, and the Third Circuit [case] has gone through the Appellate Division, and thatís the case now before the Supreme Court.In the Second Circuit itís still pending appeal, but itís very likely. The Second Circuit applies to New York.Let me just say one more thing.The law schools have therefore suspendedósuspendedótheir non-discrimination policies, but not abrogated them, and the Association of American Law Schools has things that the law schools must do every year to show that they are still supporting non-discrimination during this period when they suspend because these cases are in the court.

††††††††††† So make no mistake about it.The vote against tabling that you just made is the single thing that raises the greatest red flag. Because no matter how we vote on this, whether we vote for my amendment and turn this into a positive resolution, or vote downóas I can see the sentiment in the roomóthe Executive Committeeís amendment, we have created a red flag for the Department of Defense. But there is no question that there will be further analysis of the Solomon Amendment and that federal funding, thatís the retribution, and thatís what we risk, and thatís why the Law School currently is operating under suspension of its rules.But the University has, I believeóisnít this correct, President Bollinger?óthe University has said that the military may have access to student lists, may have access to many other things, but they do not have access to the facilities and services so long as they do not sign the non-discrimination clause.Is that not correct?


PRES. BOLLINGER:More or less that had been the position until the Defense Department threatened to apply the full force of the Solomon Amendment against the University and proceed to withdraw all fundingóHealth Sciences as well, the Medical School as well.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:The primary position that we have taken is that the military has access to ouró


PRES. BOLLINGER:It has completeóas far as I understand it, the Law School has given now complete access to the placement facilities and placement office while this is pending.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:And is that true for everyÖ?


PRES. BOLLINGER:It is true, yeah, across the institution.And the onlyóthereís a very complicated area of course, but itís really faculty at Yale and faculty at a few other schools that have brought this to challenge.The actual universities have not done that.Now, letís keep this conversation going.Nate, Iím going to putóno.


SEN. WALKER: Itís right on this point.


PRES. BOLLINGER: OK, then go very quickly.


SEN. WALKER:The Task Force agreed with you, and the resolution we put forward was that ROTC should return ifóthe exact language was ďin the event thatĒ the military no longer discriminates.




SEN. WALKER:There are quick problems with that.One is, youíre proposing a boycott of the military, because we know that theyíre not going to do that, and so therefore itís a boycott of it.And two, you commit future generations to bringing back the military without future generations being able to analyze it on their own terms.And three, itís a hypothetical discussion which places the power on the military and not on our community.And for that reason it is unanimous that the Task Force proposed two alternatives.Itís unanimous that we believe that we should adopt MITís policy, which is a contingency fund, meaning it will protect any student who is discriminated [against] by Donít Ask, Donít Tell, whoís victimized by that policy.And it will ensure that they donít have to return the funds to the Department of Defense.Columbia will do it on their benefit.


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:I believe that thatís already part of the Executive Committee resolution.


SEN. WALKER:It has not been discussed.Itís nowhere in the minutes here.And I would recommend that rather than committing future generations, rather than boycotting, or making the military say, Oh, youíre not in favor of this; well, we have to do it nowóit would help other conditions. We may want to consider an alternative amendment. And that is, letís create this contingency fund right now as a different resolution, not as a part of this, and letís do that regardless of whether or not it returns.

††††††††††† And two, letís strengthen the current program so more students can participate, achieving their goal and not putting future generations to something.This vote today is a snapshot of this body on May 6, 2005, not for what-if, what-if, what-ifs.




SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Can I just understand?I think itís important that everyone understand.I believe we received information that says that the University will make whole any student, that if this resolution passed, the University would make whole any student who was discharged from ROTC. Is that correct?


ANOTHER VOICE:Itís not in the resolution.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Itís not. We still have to sort that out. This is part of the multiple issues that would have to be taken up by the University if this were to passóthat is, the original resolutionóif this were to pass the Senate.Thereíd be lots of questions about where would ROTC be located, what would be the budgetary costs of this, how would we protect students in the event that there were dismissals or mistreatment?Those are things that are all yet to be worked out.Sharyn, did you wantó?


SEN. SHARYN OíHALLORAN (TEN., A&S/SS):In Executive Committee deliberations we were very clear that those would be taken up whether itís passed or not.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thatís right.Thatís right.


SEN. OíHALLORAN:Whether itís passed or not, that those issues would be taken up.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thatís correct.


SEN. OíHALLORAN:We donít know the budgetary implications.We werenít clear on that. But that, plus strengthening the program as it is, whether that be a shuttle bus or what have you, those are the issues that the administration did agree to.As that was in the proposal, therefore it was not necessary to put it into this particularó


PRES. BOLLINGER:Agree to take up and be serious about.Yeah.Right.Iím very nervous about appearing to make promises, but thatís right.Weíve got to keep the discussion going.


SEN. OíHALLORAN:But they are in the minutes.


SEN. DUBY: Right, they are in the minutes.


SEN. PARSONS: [Hard to hear: Has there been discussion of the role of ROTC in the Solomon Amendment?]


PRES. BOLLINGER:This is one of the questions that has been on my mind.There may be someone here who can analyze this.We do not know how the Supreme Court would rule obviously, but there are many, many different ways in which they could deal with this.I mean, they could interpret the statute and say itís been misinterpreted from the lower courts.They could say itís a violation of the First Amendment, but whatís a violation is taking away $300 million a year rather than $10 million or $20 million a yearóthat the penalty being paid is out of proportion to theóOr they could say that sexual orientation is a fundamental right within the Constitution and the government cannot do anything to interfere with that and therefore this is a complete violation.There are any number of angles that they could take on it that could have an impact on this or not have an impact on it.


SEN. PARSONS:But has there been discussion of ROTCóbesides hereóin the context of the Solomon Amendment?


PRES. BOLLINGER:Good question.I donít know of any.[Cross talk]


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:The Solomon Amendment specifically mentions ROTC.




SEN. SILVERSTEIN:The Department of Defense has not chosen that path to enforce it at universities, but the first part of the Solomon Amendment is indeed ROTC.So itís right up there.




SEN. POLLACK:My request is to consider remanding this to the Executive Committee until you can give the Executive Committee the information it needs to tell us the likelihood of us being able to strengthen this program, etc., etc.It seems to me, Iíd like to recommend tabling on the grounds of the vast amount of unknown information that weíre voting [on], and to ask you to find out.Can we find that out before we vote?


SEN. EUGENE GALANTER:Second the tabling.Thereís too much information going around here thatís notó


PRES. BOLLINGER:No.I understand.What is the rule for multiple tabling?


MR. JACOBSON:I donít know.It seems to be on a different basis.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Iím going to assumeódo you want to make this a motion to table, Bob?




PRES. BOLLINGER:Iím going to rule that this is a motion to table for a different reason or set of reasons than the earlier motion to table, and therefore it is a valid motion.There is a second to the motion.It is non-debatable.This is to table the original resolution.We just have points of information.


SEN. APPLEGATE:Itís being tabled for how long?


PRES. BOLLINGER:Itís being tabled for as long as itís notóuntil itís taken off the table.


SEN. OíHALLORAN:Is there not a difference between remanding and tabling?


PRES. BOLLINGER:But the motion was made to table.Is there such a thing?

MR. JACOBSON:There is such a thing as tabling until a specific event takes place.I thought I heard Bob [Pollack] make a distinction on that.


PRES. BOLLINGER:He said more than that.


SEN. POLLACK: [inaudible] interpretation.If he will accept this as a tabling motion, Iíll change my request.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Iím sorry, Bob.


SEN. POLLACK:If youíll call it tabling, so will I.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.I call it tabling, and I take it that the tabling, the rationale for this motion to table is not the litigation involving the Solomon Amendment and the First Amendment.It is to develop more information relevant to a return of ROTC and its implications and further information about protections for students not inóif we donít have ROTC.Itís the whole package.


SEN. GALANTER:What are the implications for the administration, etc.


PRES. BOLLINGER:We got a rough sense of this?


ANOTHER VOICE:It is the original resolution.


PRES. BOLLINGER:It is the original resolution.If this is done, we all walk out of here.[Laughter]

Only points of information.Itís not debatable.


SEN. DAVIS:Is there any likelihood that the Trustees and administration would act on this while itís on the table?Any likelihood at all?


PRES. BOLLINGER:There is no likelihood the administration will act on this.[Laughter]


SEN. ADLER:Let me back up.Your proposal has to include some way for the Senate or for people in the Senate to restore this matter to the agenda.Because as it stands, youíve said, you can defer infinitely.

PRES. BOLLINGER:But the way tabling works is that at the next meeting someone can stand up and say I move to take off the table.All right.Weíre ready.One more question.


SEN. FINDLEY: Are we clear who is going to be handling this responsibility to elaborate the issue?


PRES. BOLLINGER:It is the Executive Committee working with the administration.We in agreement?

Motion is to table.Yeah.


SEN. JAY MOHR:Are there any rules that pertain to how many times the issue of tabling can be raised?[Laughter]I thought we voted on this.


PRES. BOLLINGER:We do have to be alert to serial tablers.[Laughter]Thereís no question,no question about that.But I take this to be a different rationale for tabling, and therefore an acceptable one.Now, all in favor of the motion to table the original resolution for more or less the reasons given, please raise your hands.[Pause to count votes.]††† All those opposed to tabling, please raise your hands.[Pause to count votes.]


OTHER VOICES:Motion fails. [Cross talk]


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay, weíre going to do a second vote.[Cross talk]


SEN. MICHAEL JOHANES: My vote was not counted. Iím Michael Johanes of the Business School.

MR. MATHEWSON: Iím very sorry.I apologize.I didnít know you. There were 33 in favor, 32 opposed.Prof. Johanes, you voted in favor of tabling, am I right?Yeah, 33 in favor.


PRES. BOLLINGER:I think under the circumstances we should do a second vote.Bob, are you comfortable with that.I think we need aóletís have two counters this time.Okay?I havenít yet because weíre gonna do a new vote.[Cross talk]All in favor of the motion to table the original resolution.[Pause to count votes.]


MR. MATHEWSON: Thirty-three.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Opposed to the motion to table.[Pause to count votes]


MR. MATHEWSON: Thirty-three.


PRES. BOLLINGER: Abstentions, please raise your hands.[Pause to count votes]




PRES. BOLLINGER: You didnít count me, right?You didnít count my vote?


MR. MATHEWSON: I did not count your vote.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay.Iím going to vote against tabling in the interests of continuing debate [applause], but I favor tabling.[Laughter]I just want to be clear about this.No, I think under the circumstances itís important that we should opt for further debateóunder the circumstances.Peter.


SEN. PETER MARCUSE (TEN., SAPP):On the amendment, as a matter of information, I would point out that it is not the same language as the Task Forceís compromise was.The Task Force language was ďin the event that gay, lesbian and bisexual members are permitted to serve openly in the military,Ē as a general statement, whereas the amendment on the floor is restricted to Columbia and says in effect, As long as thereís no discrimination here itís all right for the Armed Services, for ROTC elsewhere.Mr. Chairman, I move the question.


PRES. BOLLINGER:You move the question.You call for the question on the amendment.Are we ready to vote on the amendment?Yes?


SEN. CLIFFORD SISKIN (TEN., A&S/HUM):I just want to raise one issue in regard to how many positions there are, because the notion of a yes-no vote is causing a lot of us problems.There are three positions, as far as I can see.One is, you want to bring ROTC back right now.The second one is, you donít want to bring it back until Donít Ask, Donít Tell is gone.And the third one is you donít want to bring ROTC in.And one of the problems posed by this amendment is that you may be in favor of the sentiment in the amendment, but it commits you to letting ROTC back in without any real discussion.Thereís been no discussion today, but many of the letters Iíve received were primarily concerned with the idea of whether ROTC should be here.I would have hoped that the Executive Committee could have changed the resolution to simply say, Until that point at which we no longer have Donít Ask, Donít Tell, Columbia will not consider the return of ROTC, and then that sets up a future debate, or we can engage these other issues that are being silenced here.I donít know how this would work in parliamentary terms, but I would urge the Executive Committee to put that forward as something that makes a real yes-no, that we can actually vote on without being compromised by a situation. . . . [Applause]



SEN. BRADLEY BLOCH (ALUM.):I fully understand and support the sentiments behind the amendment, but Iím against it because I feel that itís, I suppose, what one would call bad legislation.Weíre here as a deliberative body because weíre supposed to make choices.Now usually those choices are easy: Should we have a brain institute?Sure.[Laughter] Now weíve got a tough choice. And so what weíre trying to do is equivocate, waffle, and so weíve got anotheróWell, gee, if this and that hypothetical happens at some point in the future and everything is perfectly rosy, will we agree?Well, of course, by definition we will.

††††††††††† But thatís not the situation weíre in, and thatís not the reason that we were sent to the Senate.We were sent to the Senate to look at real-world situations and figure out what weíre supposed to do when weíre presented with them.And so I think that if we were to pass this amendment, weíre still going to really be nowhere because itís going to be talking about an alternative universe that doesnít exist.Weíve been presented with a hard problem; weíve got to solve it.[Applause]


ANOTHER VOICE: Call the question.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thereís still debate, and Iím going to keep it going.


SEN. MARCUSE:After the question has been called, there is not debate.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Is that true?Hold on, Peter, Iíll see. [Cross talk].


MR. JACOBSON:Your motion is to cut off debate.


ANOTHER VOICE: Thatís correct.


SEN. DUBY:On the amendment.


PRES. BOLLINGER:You have to have a two-thirds vote.Itís a two-thirds vote to cut off debate.Letís just take one or two more statements quickly and thenóPeter, are you okay with that?Okay.Quickly then.


SEN. AMY SCHOEMAN (STU., SIPA):Hi.My nameís Amy Schoeman from SIPA and GSAP.One of the things that makes me very uncomfortable about the amendment is that I think itís very [inaudible], sort of getting away from the real issue, which is, you know, the Donít Ask, Donít Tell policy and human rights.And I think as a principle what the amendment really does, you know, it privileges Columbia, which is already in a very privileged position, but further privilegesópeople who serve in ROTC and who are excluded from the policy when they join the military are further excluded from policies that affect other people, maybe from different backgrounds.I think it sends a really bad message about, you know, Columbiaís stand in the world and how we view ourselves as different from other people.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Are we ready to vote?Weíre ready to vote on the amendment.


MR. MATHEWSON:Is that a record vote?




PRES. BOLLINGER:Itís not going to be a record vote.It is the amendment to the resolution, which Iíve now read three times.We donít have to read it again.All in favor of the amendment, please raise your hands.[Pause to count votes]




PRES. BOLLINGER:All against the amendment, please raise your hands. The amendment fails.Not necessary [to count]. Sam, you OK with this?[Laughter]No, I mean OK with the judgment.All againstóIím sorry, all abstaining.Okay.Thank you.††

Weíre now back on the main resolution.[To Sen. Siskin] Do you want to make an amendment here?A substitute, is that what it is?


SEN. SISKIN:But I want to know, Can we have a substitute resolution?


MR. JACOBSON:Thatís an amendment.


SEN. SISKIN:Well, the amendment could get rid of all of those whereases and theó


PRES. BOLLINGER:I take it the amendment would be,If and when the. . . .óOh, I donít want to state it.It becomes tooóI donít want to state it. Youíll have to come up with your own wording on it.

ANOTHER VOICE: Call the question.


PRES. BOLLINGER: Itís calling the question, I understand, but itís a two-thirds vote, Iím told by my parliamentary person. . . . Are we ready to do that?All right.[To Sen. Siskin] Youíre free to make an amendment.Iíve had youóyou were on the floor.Youíre free to make an amendment if you wish.


SEN. SISKIN:Until such time. . . . Let me get this. . . . Until such time. . . .[Cross talk]How about, Until the [inaudible] . . . .


PRES. BOLLINGER:There is another possibility.There is a possibility.Let me just make sure that we have options before us.We could return to the issue in the first meeting in the fall.




PRES. BOLLINGER:I donít want to just hearógo ahead.


SEN. SISKIN:Until the time at which Donít Ask, Donít Tell no longer restricts membership in the Armed Forces. . . .Until that time in which weó[Cross talk]


SEN. PARSONS: ďIn the event that gay, lesbian, and bisexual members are permitted to serve openly in the military, Columbia should discuss the possibility of returning ROTC to campus. . .Ē [Cross talk]


PRES. BOLLINGER:We actually have an amendment.Is there a second?††




PRES. BOLLINGER:Letís read the amendment.Letís read the amendment.Howard.


MR. JACOBSON:Were you reading from something so I. . . .?[Cross talk]Okay, the way Iím hearing it isó


PRES. BOLLINGER:Please, please.


MR. JACOBSON:ďIn the event that gay and lesbian and bisexual service members are permitted to serve openly in the military, Columbia would reconsider the establishment of ROTC on the Columbia campus.Ē


PRES. BOLLINGER:OK.All right, all right.That is the amendment.It is seconded.It is open for discussion.Yes.


SEN. MAYA TOLSTOY (RESEARCH OFFICER):Iím not a lawyer, but that doesnít really sound like it works because weíre amending somethingóthe amendment says weíre not going to vote on what weíre voting on.[Cross talk]


SEN. DUBY:This would be a substitute resolution because it is not consistent with the one which is on the floor.So it would beó


PRES. BOLLINGER:Please.Hold on, hold on.Howard, I want to make sure weíre right.You said that a substitute is an amendment.


MR. JACOBSON:Yes.The way I heard the intent of the mover of the amendment was to substitute what he was proposing for whatís currently on the table.


PRES. BOLLINGER:And thatís treated as a majority vote.


MR. JACOBSON:Right.You have to vote on that.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Fine.Fine. Thatís what weíre doing.Itís open for discussion and debate.

SEN. DUBY: But I think I should make clear that that will replace the resolution.


PRES. BOLLINGER:We understand.


SEN. DUBY:The resolution will no longer be on the floor.


PRES. BOLLINGER:We understand.The Senate understands.Further discussion.


SEN. DAVIS: The sense is that this would be a non-issue until such time as Donít Ask, Donít Tell is repealed or otherwise removed.That we would not vote on it again.Is that the sense?


PRES. BOLLINGER:In legislative terms, oneís always free to come back and to raise issues.I mean the Senate can act at any time.So this Senate cannot bind future Senates, so itís always open to consider new things. But this is the statement, this is proposed as the resolution of the Senate at this moment.Sam?


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Could I just offer a friendly suggestion?And the suggestion is that you have focused this strictly on sexual orientation.In fact, the anti-discrimination policy is far broader and far more inclusive, and so as a friendly suggestion, I would ask the proposers of this to just take Columbiaís anti-discrimination policy, slip it into whatever happy phrases youíd like to, and offer that as a resolution until such time as this whole policy and all of these things are [accepted by] the military, because in fact who knows what the next [conflict?] will be.


SEN. PARSONS:Yes, we were reading from the Task Force resolution, but yes, of course, that is the intent of it which is that until such time asótill the militaryís policies do not conflict with Columbiaís anti-discrimination policiesó


SEN. SILVERSTEIN:Right, in a positive senseówe actually support Columbiaís policies, not just [inaudible] them.[Cross talk and laughter]


MR. JACOBSON:Clarity has been lost.

PRES. BOLLINGER:I think thatís exactly right.I think if weíre going to have a discussion on an amendment, on a resolution, weíve got to know what it is.Okay?So we had something that was proposed.What is it?


MR. JACOBSON:What I had down isó




MR. JACOBSON:ďIn the event that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons are permitted to serve openly in the military, the University would consider re-establishing an on-campus ROTC program at Columbia


SEN. PARSONS:ďIn the event that the military complies with Columbiaís anti-discrimination policy, etc., etc.Ē




ANOTHER VOICE:Iíd like to, I donít know if I want to bring this up, but Iíd like to remind people and make it some part of the discussion that that would also give, make the military have to take people with physical disabilities.I mean there might be a reason why you would want to hold the line.Thank you.


PRES. BOLLINGER:We still have the amendment on the floor.Further discussion or a vote?


SEN. ADLER:Discussion.I wish that the president would reverse his vote on tabling.[Laughter]Because tabling at this point offers the University much more flexibility than any of the resolutions that are being offered.I donít see the First Amendment as being less of a provocation than all the others were.And as far as Iím concerned, it would be extremely useful for the administration and for the Executive Committee not only to have more information, but feel out the winds of change with respect to the Solomon Amendment before we have a final vote on this issue.And I wish youíd change your vote, Sir.

PRES. BOLLINGER:If I did, youíd never forgive me.[Laughter]



SEN. NOAH RAIZMAN (STU., P&S):If the original, disregarding for a moment the amendment, if the original resolution were defeated, would that be not a provocation?.It would not be a provocation? Also, ROTCóthat issue could be brought up again to the Senate at any point?


PRES. BOLLINGER:Yes, thatís correct.

Further discussion on the amendment.


SEN. ARIEL:I just want to say, with all due respect, I think that a lot of us have made a special effort to appear today to vote whether or not to bring ROTC back.Today we have all these amendments.Weíre trying to, you know, write amendments from the floor.I would urge the Senate to vote on the resolution, the original resolution brought by the Executive Committee.I would like for us to settle this.No tabling, no discussion at some unforeseen point in the future.I would like for us to come to a vote today before people have to leave or before weíre kicked out of the room even though we have the room until four oíclock.This could go on for days.So I would urge us to vote on this.[Applause]




SEN. MARCUSE:No voteís every really final.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Weíre ready to vote.Weíre ready to vote on the substitute resolution amendment, which reads as follows:


MR. JACOBSON:The way I still have it is, ďIn the event that gay, lesbian and bisexual personsóď



MR. JACOBSON:So you want it to be, ďIn the event the United States Armed Forces comply with the Universityís currently stated anti-discrimination policies Ėď




MR. JACOBSON:--ďthe Senate will consider reinstating an on-campus ROTC program at ColumbiaOK.


PRES. BOLLINGER:There it is.Weíre ready to vote.All in favor of the substitute resolution amendment, please raise your hands.It doesnít have to be a record vote.[Pause to count votes]Please raise your hands if you vote in favor of the substitute resolution amendment.


MR. MATHEWSON:I got eleven. . . 19.


PRES. BOLLINGER:All opposed to the substitute resolution amendment?It fails.[Pause to count votes]††† The substitute resolution fails by a vote of 43 to 19.I should say, All abstentions, please.


MR. MATHEWSON:One, two, three, four, five.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Okay, so it fails by that vote.Now we are back on the main resolution.Hold on just a second.We are back to the main resolution proposed from the Executive Committee, and now we have discussion.


PROVOST ALAN BRINKLEY:We have agreed, the president and I and the administration have agreed since the beginning of this discussion a year and a half ago, that this should be a community decision.It should not be made by fiat by members of the administration.I still believe that.And so I speak today simply as an individual and a member of the Senate, not on behalf of the administration.

††††††††††† I have great respect for the men and women who serve in our military.I have great respect for our students who have chosen to join ROTC and prepare for a career in the military.I oppose the amendments that have been offered today because I think this issue should be decided as a matter of principle, not tactically, and many people have many feelings on both sides of this issue that have nothing to do with the discrimination policies of the military.

However, for me the issue is the discriminatory policies of the American military, and the question before us as presented by several people in memos and e-mails is, We are weighing two social goods. One social good is presumably to strengthen the military by our presence in it and giving opportunities to our students to participate openly and easily in military training, receiving money for scholarship.And the other social good is defending our own principles of discrimination.And the question is, Are those two goods equal?I believe they are not. One is essentially a practical good, and the other is to me a moral good.

††††††††††† Would we, would we, if faced with a similar situation, agree to form a formal association with an organization that said, African Americans can join this organization only if they pass for white?[Laughter]Jews can join this organization only if they pretend to be Christians?Women can join this organization only if they appear to be men?Clearly we would not accept an organization that has those qualifications for a formal university affiliation.

††††††††††† Is there a difference between those hypothetical examples and the reality we have before us?[Does] the moral weight of the demand by gay and lesbian Americans for equal rights and human dignity [have] any less moral weight than the demand of African Americans, of women, of any other minority?And I believe it does not.We are faced with a period in our nation in which the great civil rights movement of our time is the plea, the demand, by gay and lesbian citizens for the same rights and the same level of human dignity of any other American. And whatóif we decide as a community that that demand has less weight than other demands that we all support, what message does that send to our students, to our colleagues, to our friends who are gays and lesbians and bisexuals about what this institution stands for?[Applause]


PRES. BOLLINGER:Further discussion.Yup.


SEN. BLOCH:On April 15th, during the special session to discuss this, many of my colleagues got up to argue strongly for or against.I got up to talk about how on the fence I was, and Iíve been on the fence until the last week, in which I had a chance to read the e-mails and the comments and so forth [inaudible] from the opposition.And I have to say that having done so, my response on this issue is to favor it, and I want to explain to you why.

††††††††††† Itís clear that everyone whoóeven those who are in favor of bringing ROTC back to campusóoppose Donít Ask, Donít Tell.But as I said before, weíre not dealing in a perfect world; weíre dealing in the world that we have.And even with that imperfection I feel that ROTC should be invited back.A lot of the comments that people made opposing that [were] very interesting because they started off with Donít Ask, Donít Tell, but they didnítóit wasnít so long before it got into things about the Iraqi war, the Bush administration, the military in general.If you scratch the issue of Donít Ask, Donít Tell for most of the people, even Nate who made such an eloquent speech in opposition to this, making allusions to the commander in chief having gone to Yale, and so on and so forth.But what weíre really seeing is a lot of ambivalence about the military.And that ambivalence is understandable, and that ambivalenceópeople have a right to feel that way.

††††††††††† But letís go back to why it is that this whole issue came about.The issue came about because in 2003 a resolution was put before the students of the College, and the question was this:Should Columbia students who want to train for professions in the military be allowed to do so at Columbia alongside Columbians?And two thirds of the students polled at the time agreed.Nowó[Hissing]óthey did.Itís a matter of public record.


PRES. BOLLINGER: Please. Please.


SEN. BLOCH: Now one of the things thatís very interesting to think about is that that was still in the shadow of 9/11, and that event greatly changed, caused people to rethink their feelings about the military, even in a place like this, which historically is very skepticalóif not even cynicalóof the military.But in the shadow of 9/11 people reconsidered that.And, you know, after 9/11, when the streets of New York had military in them, when we had the jets above us, I donít remember anybody protesting having the military around then. [Hissing] I donít remember anybody saying that they didnít want the military here protecting us.

††††††††††† So I think people generally are in agreement that during times of danger they want the benefits.The question is, now that the, you know, that danger has receded, itís distant and so therefore itís easy to ignore.But the question comes back to a very simple one:Should Columbians be allowed to prepare for the military here, in the same way that theyíre allowed to prepare for other careers?And I think that the fair answer is that they should.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Further debate with people who have not yet spoken.Yes.


SEN. EDWARD MULLEN (TEN., SOCIAL WORK):Iím troubled by the reference to provocation.Provocation has typically been the mechanism by which social justice and discrimination has been fought in this country.Provocation is just fine, and I will be very proud of an institution such as Columbia if it were to take on knowingly that it is being provocative and there could be consequences and still make the right decisions.[Applause]


PROF. KENDALL THOMAS (NONSEN., TEN., LAW SCHOOL; TASK FORCE MEMBER):Thank you, Mr. President.My name is Kendall Thomas.Iím a member of the Task Force that deliberated on this question, and I would like to speak just very briefly to the substance of the resolution before this body.An article in the New York Times earlier this week, I believe, reported that there was unanimity amongst the members of the Task Force with respect to the proposition that if the military were to repeal or if the Congress were to repeal the current policy known as Donít Ask, Donít Tell, all of the members of the Task Force would have welcomed the reinstatement of ROTC on campus.That was done through, I think, a rather simple-minded reading of some evidence about what the vote in the Task Force had been, and it created the impression that there was no substantive opposition to ROTC, regardless of whether Donít Ask, Donít Tell were repealed or not.And I stand simply to speak for a moment in substantive disagreement with the proposition that ROTC ought to be returned, the question of Donít Ask, Donít Tell aside.

††††††††††† That is to say, I stand to state with no ambivalence at all, not that Iím opposed to the military, but that I am fundamentally opposed to the relationship between the United States government and Columbia University that the return of ROTC would represent.There are many visions of the University.The one vision of the University, however, which I think Columbia embodies and which I think is valuable in an educational culture that is committed to pluralism, is the following:There ought to be at least some universities in a nation whoówhichóare not in a relationship with the state of the kind that characterizes, say, public land-grant universities.In other words, there ought to be some diversity, some institutional diversity such that in the United States there are universities which embody the ideals of a kind of freedom from the state, of independence, that to my mind the return of ROTC to Columbia University would undermine, with consequences that few of us can imagine.

††††††††††† So I would put before you quite simply the idea that there is value to the fundamental proposition that the separation of the university and the state is something that at least some universities in this country, even in time of war, ought to uphold.And they ought to do so with no ambivalence at all, but with pride and from a deep recognition that that separation is crucial to the maintenance for the culture as a whole of spirit of inquiry, of open-minded and fearless investigation of ideas and of a rejection of the power of the state to colonize every institution in civil society.

††††††††††† That seems to me what is at stake this afternoon, and I would urge those of youóregardless of your views on Donít Ask, Donít Tellóto give serious thought to the value of this fundamental principle that the state and the university ought to be separate.Thank you.[Applause]


PRES. BOLLINGER:Thank you.Yes.


SEN. BALDWIN: [to Sen. Bloch]I would like to point out a point of fact that completely disputes your argument, which is that the status quo allows people to go to Columbia and be trained to be in the military.They already are doing so, and nothing we do here today would change that.If we shoot down this whole proposal, they can continue to train for the military and go to Columbia.Itís already in place.We donít need to bring them here to make that happen.So thereís nothing preventing them from doing it.Itís a point of fact that youíre ignoring by saying that this resolution would enable them to do that.They are already able to do that.




SEN. POLLACK:I want to respond to Kendall Thomasís formulation.The president will know whether we are the first-, second-, or third-most wealthy recipient of federal grants for research.But whether itís first, second, third, or fifth, we could not function a week without that money as it is now constituted.The large question of how we got there and whether we should be there is really, I think, a first-hand, a first-order issue, but it will not be solved properly by allowing ourselves to be shut down through the Solomon Amendment.It is a really important question, though, and I wish the Senate would consider it in a serious way.


SEN. EUGENE LITWAK (TEN., A&S/SS):Iím taking out my earplugs so I wonít hear any replies to my remarks.[Laughter]I fail to see the impact of the Solomon Amendment on our decision.If the Supreme Court upholds the Solomon Amendment, thereís nothing we can do even if we say thereís no ROTC, thereís nothing we can do because youíre precisely rightóthat if the Senate Court upholds the Solomon Amendment, then the government decides to withdraw its funds, that would kill us as a university.Thereís nothing we can do about it.Itís completely irrelevant whether we say weíre for it or against it.So I donít see why we are so worried about whatís going to happen, and I donít see that it should really bear on our decision.

††††††††††† I happen to agree with my friend Ed Mullen here that we should do what is right because it really isnít going to matter if they do decide to uphold the Solomon Amendmentóthereís no way we could survive without going along with them.


PRES. BOLLINGER:No.Iíll come back, Peter.Iím sorry.


SEN. MOHR:Can I just say that I disagree with the comment about doing what is right as if weíre supposed to vote against ROTC?There might be some who think it is to do right to vote for ROTC.So how about letís [inaudible] and stop trying to intimidate each other on right or wrong.Why donít we decide whether we would like it to come back or not like it to come back, and vote?[Applause]




ANOTHER VOICE: Part of my concernó


PRES. BOLLINGER: Hold on.Sorry.Peter.

SEN. MARCUSE:If Iím just going to be interrupted, I move the question. [Laughter]


MR. JACOBSON:It requires a two-thirds vote of the body to cut off debate.


PRES. BOLLINGER:Do you want to press it?Yes.Thereís a motion to close debate.Itís been seconded.It requires a two-thirds vote to pass.Itís non-discussable, I assume?Any points of information about the motion to close debate?All in favor please raise your hands.[Pause to count votes]Fifty-seven.All against closing debate.How many?Please raise your hands.[Laughter]All abstaining from this.Okay.Debate is hereby closed.[Applause]We now are going to vote on the resolution.


Another voice:What information do we put on the paper?


SEN. DUBY, Yes, no, your name and sign it.


PRES. BOLLINGER:You must put on, yes or no.Yes or no.And your name.And sign it.And sign it.Those three things.[Cross talk]




MR. JACOBSON:. . .óas presented by the Executive Committee, that was circulated to everybody.A no vote is against that resolution; abstaining means you want to record that you are not taking a position.[Cross talk.] The members of the office of the Senate Secretariat will be the tellers for this purpose under the rule and will count the vote and announce it.


MR. MATHEWSON:May I have your ballots please.All ballots.[Delay for ballots.]


MR. JACOBSON:No, you guys are going to count and prepare it.You have to make sure the names are all, the names are on the Senate list.†† You and Tom are the tellers on this.Come back with the vote.Any senators who have not handed in their ballots who wish to?


MR. MATHEWSON:Any other ballots?[Delay to count the votes]


PRES. BOLLINGER:The resolution fails.[Applause]The vote on the resolution is 11 yes, 51 no [Applause].Five abstentions.[The president was reading an inaccurate vote tally supplied to him by the Senate staff. The correct tally is 10 yes, 53 no, 5 abstentions.] We have voted that this is a record vote, which means that the votes will be published or public information, and that concludes the discussion of ROTC.I propose that we draw the meeting to a close.Is that acceptable?