Task Force Hearing of February 7, 2011
The first public hearing of the Task Force on Military Engagement was held on Monday, February 7, 2011 from 8 PM to 10 PM in 417 International Affairs Building. A transcript follows.
We have transcribed names on a "best efforts" basis and apologize for any inaccuracies. Please notify the Task Force at rotc-taskforce@columbia.edu for any corrections on names.Audio recordings of the first Task Force hearing may be found at:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=HD1UV1AZ
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=W0YL80Y0
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
UNIVERSITY SENATE
TRANSCRIPT OF A
HEARING OF THE TASK FORCE ON MILITARY ENGAGEMENT
Ron Mazor: Please be
seated. We’re about to start. Thank you all for
coming out tonight.
My name is Ron Mazor. I’m the co-chair of the Task Force on
Military
Engagement. We appreciate that you’ve all come out to talk
about ROTC,
military engagement and
Sharyn O’Halloran:
Thank you. And I’d like to welcome everyone to
the first of a three-part series related to the university’s engagement
with
the military. And so thank you very much for being here
tonight.
Now the purpose of this hearing is to begin a dialogue around the
issues
related to the university’s engagement of various activities with the
armed
forces, including ROTC. And what is said tonight will provide
the basis
of recommendations of how the Columbia community can best engage the
military
while staying true to our missions of an open and free environment for
teaching, learning and research. And so your participation is
both
welcomed and very important.
Now just as
a way of background,
Now
discussions of the proper relationship of
Now the Task
Force will be hosting town hall meetings just like this.
They’ll have two
more of them. They’ll be polling students to get their
opinions about the
various activities that we do on campus and what else we’d like to be
doing. And then they’ll be drafting recommendations regarding
their
findings. Now the structure of the debate for tonight will be
an open
mike forum. And we want everyone to have an opportunity to
express their
opinion. We believe that free expression of opinion
is essential to
the university and that all members of the
I’m now
going to turn the event back over to the co-chairs. And I
want to thank
you again for joining us this evening, and I look forward to a
productive
discussion. [Applause].
Ron Mazor: Thank you very
much, Sharyn. Just to recap. Comments are going to
be about two
minutes and thirty seconds apiece. We want to make sure that
everyone in
this event has the ability to come up and speak. So please
limit and obey
and respect the time limit. I would say that one thing that I
always
loved about
Janine Balekdjian:
Hi.
I’m Janine Balekdjian. I’m a sophomore in the
College. And my
question relates to the continued relationship between the LGBT
community and
ROTC. Even though DADT has been repealed, the transgender
individual
still can’t serve in the military as per military policy, and the same
people
[can’t] participate in ROTC. That still, to my understanding, violates
the
university’s discrimination policy because gender identity is a
protected
category. See, the university’s reasoning for not allowing
ROTC back on
campus used to be that it violated the discrimination policy because of
DADT. To my understanding, it still violates the university’s
discrimination policy because of not allowing transgender individuals,
and
therefore, I don’t see how
Sean Udell: My name is
Sean
Udell and I’m a senior in
Daniela Garcia:
Hello.
I’m Daniela Garcia. I’m a senior in
Paco: My comment’s real
short. My name is Paco. I’m a senior in the
College. Just to
add on to that. When you take into consideration the fact
that we’re
reading in our headlines right now is that we’re seeing billion dollar
budget
cuts in school services and health and human services, and we see the
cost of
the war every day and the fact that it costs billions of dollars to
sustain the
war every day. As somebody said earlier, are these the ideals
we wish to
adhere to, that we spend more on war than our own people? War
against
innocent civilians. Like I said, it’s a short
comment. I just
wanted to add that to food for thought as we consider this.
[Applause]
Avi Edelman:
Hello. My name is Avi. I’m the president
of Everyone Allied
Against Homophobia, which is an activist group for queer and allied
students on
campus. So speaking on behalf of myself and on behalf of the
group, I’d
just like to echo what some of my peers have raised, the issue of our
university non-discrimination policy and the fact that though a lot of
the
rhetoric has made it seem like the repeal of DADT has removed all forms
of
institutional discrimination from the ROTC program, the truth is the
transgender students would still be barred from those programs, and our
university has a history of being at the forefront of not only gay
issues, but
transgender issues as well. We are about to launch a pilot
program and
become one of the leading universities in having open housing and
housing that
incorporates transgender students and doesn’t discriminate on the basis
of
gender identity. So I think that given the rhetoric about
DADT, given the
fact that, you know, President Obama has called on universities to
bring back
ROTC, I think the hard decision is going to be to say no, until the
university
stops discriminating against all individuals and adheres to our
non-discrimination code, we can’t bring it back. I think
that’s a really
tough decision, but it’s the right one, and our university has a
history of
making those tough calls. [Applause]
Neal Rickner:
Right. So my name’s Rudy Rickner. I’m at SIPA and Business,
and I’ll just
be the first to respond. First, I’m a twelve-year veteran of
the United
States Marine Corps. I was not an ROTC student, but I support
the return
of ROTC to the campus primarily because what we’re discussing tonight
demonstrates
the gap between the civil—I should say the civil-military relations
gap.
That is that the people who have spoken so far tonight don’t really
understand
what ROTC means, and don’t really understand what the military’s all
about. So, for example, DADT and now the transgender issue is
not a
question for someone like me in the military. It’s for the
Congress. If you don’t like the law, you vote and your
Congressman
votes. You therefore need to talk to the lawmakers
to change the
law. I support and know gay men and women in the military,
and I would
support transgender people coming into the military. I have
nothing
against, and I would serve happily with them. So I have no
reservations
about that whatsoever. But it’s not up to me. What I do
support is what
has been brought up here already, I guess, that people have a right to
pursue
that which they think is appropriate for themselves, and ROTC is an
opportunity
for someone to express their beliefs towards service, towards other
things that
they believe to be true. Just as you believe certain things
to be true,
others have other views that are equally valid as we’ve discussed
tonight. So it may not be something that’s aligned with your
point of
view, but it doesn’t make it wrong, and I’m [not]sure this will be my
last
comment, but I see some people lining up so I’ll let you come
back.
[Applause]
Marlena: My name’s
Marlena,
and I just have a question. Would bringing ROTC back to
campus allow the
ROTC the opportunity to do recruitment in the community, especially
Harlem?
Thinking of the way that the military recruits in low-income
communities, in
communities of people of color disproportionately. I just
want to know
what the relationship between that would be.
[Applause]
Nick Lomuscio: Hi. How are
you
doing? My name is Nick. I am a junior at General
Studies. In
response to the concern that—the concerns being raised here tonight are
not
relevant to a potential panel willing to engage with a student body as
to
whether or not ROTC should return to the campus. It
absolutely is
and it is not for reasons of our limiting ROTC from coming to campus
because
it’s a group that expresses viewpoints that other people don’t agree
with. It’s
because it is a group that is related to a branch of the United States
government that openly discriminates against transgender people, that
openly
engages in warfare. These are not questions or differences of opinion.
These
are actions. And the opposition is not to the differences of
opinions, it
is to actions. That’s all. [Applause]
Cara Buchanan:
Hi. My
name is Cara Buchanan. I’m a senior in Columbia
College. So in
response to the gentleman that just spoke in the orange sweater, it’s a
grand
assumption to state that us as students that are individuals that are
anti-ROTC
coming back to campus are not affected in the same way. I’m
sure that I
can speak for myself and perhaps others in saying that my family is
personally
involved in the military, and it’s been something that’s been very
detrimental
to my health [in the way] in which I grew up in that type of
environment. But
also there is more ways to engage in military-civilian dialogue than
simply to
allow ROTC back on campus. For example, last year the
Roosevelt Institute
for Public Policy took some students up to West Point to have a tour of
West
Point, engage with some of the cadets there, and engage in
military-civilian
dialogue which was, you know, excellent I think, and another way in
which we
can step outside of the confines of just the ROTC being the solution to
military-civilian dialogue. I would say that we can—you know,
we’re
Columbia University students. We can be creative in the ways
in which we
continue this dialogue, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that we need to
bring
back ROTC to campus. [Applause]
Michael Zapata: Good
evening. My name is Mike Zapata. I’m at the
Business School.
So a little background on myself. I served nine and a half
years in the
Navy as a SEAL lieutenant, and I did go to an ROTC program at Texas
A&M
University. What I can say is that, you know, let me see
here.
Columbia, is, you know, obviously a fantastic university, and I think
the best
thing about Columbia is that it has produced leaders of this country
and will
continue to produce leaders of this country, in all aspects of life
that we
have: military, Department of State, civilian side, social
side.
It’s an incredible place to be, and bringing ROTC to this university is
going
to allow—the way to make a change is from the inside, and having ROTC
here allows
the Columbia University transgender—whatever your views are, it allows
you to
impact potential future leaders of the military. What does
that
mean? That means that it’s hard to imagine that they’ll come
here and
they’ll be isolated because of ROTC. No, they’re students
like everybody
else. They’re going to live. They’re going to be
amongst
everybody. They’re going to appreciate the different views
and different
aspects, and having an impact on them now starts now, in this point of
time,
where you can actually, you can have opinions put
into, you know,
potential leaders of the military as they grow and as they progress in
their
military careers, you might see change. And I’m not
guaranteeing that
there will be change, but it’s an impact. It’s an opportunity
to reach
out to somebody at your level, at your age, and potentially have an
impact on
him as he gets older and through his military career. So I’m
for
ROTC. I appreciate the time, and I hope that it does work
out.
Thank you. [Applause]
Matt: My name is
Matt.
I’m a student in the History Department. I’m a grad student
studying
African history. I, a lot of my family, four of my uncles are
all or were
active in the military, and it’s in many ways hearing their stories of
the
things that they were asked to do by their officers or that they asked
other people
to do as officers that have reinforced my opposition to bringing back a
relationship, a stronger relationship, with ROTC onto Columbia’s
campus.
I think one thing that was kind of missing from the discussion is that
we’ve
talked a lot about the impact of DADT, but it’s important to remember
the
context in which ROTC left campus in the first place, which is actually
the
context of a massive student movement against the Vietnam war, and it
went
through a panel and many formal channels, but the environment was one
in which
actually students were saying, We don’t think our university should
have a
relationship with an institution that is killing, in the case of
Vietnam, ended
up killing in the course of that war 2 million Vietnamese who died in
the
course of that war. And so, and along with of course 60,000
U.S. soldiers
who also died in that war. And I think the same thing holds
true.
Many of us who are against it are not against this or that person’s
individual
choice, but actually what it says for the university to increase its
relationship with an institution like the military. And one
of the
questions that was up there is, Have recent events shaped your opinion
of this
issue? And they have: the war in Iraq that’s killed over a
million people
in Iraq; the war in Afghanistan that’s now by conservative
estimates
killed 30,000 civilians in Afghanistan; the drone attacks that
have begun
over the past year and a half over Pakistan. Those are the events that
confirm
for me that I don’t want Columbia to be part of training officers to
run the
military that’s part of that. And I think as a student of
history I can
look back through American history and recognize that no matter what
party, no
matter what time, the U.S. military has been used in such a way to
actually not
spread democracy but many times to hinder it and to murder
civilians. And
I don’t think that that’s an
institution that we want our university to forge closer ties
with.
[Applause]
Dan
Morosani:
Good evening everyone. My name is Dan. I previously
served, or
sorry, I’m a business student. I previously served in the
Marine Corps as
a captain. First of all I would like to thank everyone for
coming out and
participating in this discussion. A lot of things have been
mentioned as
far as bad things the military does: harboring sexual
assault, being
responsible for civilian deaths, the unspecified bad things that Matt’s
(who
just spoke) relatives were told to do. I think what they all
have in
common is that those things are failures of leadership, and, you know,
failures
of leadership ultimately originate in bad leaders. And the
way to, you
know, to reduce and ultimately eliminate these leadership failures is
to give
our young war fighters the best leadership they can have. I
think that
the average Columbia student is of a higher caliber than the average
student
across America, the university system. I hope you all agree
with me. And
I think that the average Columbia student who goes into ROTC is going
to be a
better officer than the average student from another school who goes
into
ROTC. I joined the Marine Corps in September 2001.
As a New Yorker
I wanted to be a part of America’s response to what happened on
September 11th.
I
think we all join for different reasons, but I think that when you face
your
platoon for the first time it stops being about why you joined, and it
starts
being about doing the best job you can for the nineteen-year-old kids
who are
standing in front
of you. Another speaker mentioned the
fact the military
recruits disproportionately from low- income communities. I
don’t know
what the targeting is. I can tell you that that is somewhat
the case in
terms of who you end up leading, and it’s because I love the Marines I
served
with and the Marines that I had the privilege of leading that I want
ROTC here
at Columbia. I want these young Marines and members of all the other
forces to
have the best leadership that they can because ultimately that’s the,
you know,
most important determining factor in whether or not they come home
alive.
I respect the fact that a lot of people here are against war in
general, but
America will fight wars a lot in the future. It’s just a
fact, and given
that fact, I think we should give our young war fighters the best
leadership
they can have. Thank you. [Applause]
John McClelland:
Hi. My
name is John McClelland. I’m a ROTC cadet. In fact,
I was actually
the cadet battalion commander in charge of all New York City Army ROTC
last
semester. I’m the president emeritus of the Military Veterans
at Columbia
University. I previously served as a medic with five tours
overseas: four in Afghanistan, one in Iraq as an Army Ranger
and a
medic. Now, we are talking about ROTC here. It’s
not about the
military at all. The last thing that the military wants is to
come onto
Columbia’s campus. Okay? The thing is, it’s about
you.
Ron Mazor: If you wouldn’t
mind, address the panel, please. Sorry. Address us
and not the
audience.
McClelland:
Okay. It’s
about all of us engaging the military. We cite ’68 and we
cite the
student revolts against the Vietnam war, and I’m for that. I
want people
to be against war. You know, I’ve spent, most of my military
career in
Afghanistan. I’ve lost 11 friends in Afghanistan in the past
two
years. I do not like the Afghan war.
I will go on record in saying that. But I will
serve over
there. I will lead troops over there, and I will lead them
very well to
make sure that they come home [alive]. I will make sure that
the
communities out there in Afghanistan are serviced properly, and that we
in my
little piece of Afghanistan when I go over there is going to be the
safest that
I can physically make it. Now, it’s about everyone here
because in ’68
when everyone revolted against the Vietnam war, guess what, in 1972
when the
all-volunteer military force came into effect, all those protests went
away. Nobody cared anymore because it wasn’t them.
It wasn’t anybody
that they knew. It was that person that was recruited out of
that, you
know, city slum or in that rural community out there fighting your
wars.
I want ROTC to come back to Columbia because I want people to engage
with
people in the military. I want people to know somebody in the
military. I want them to know that they’re fighting overseas
so they stay
politically engaged with the military. And that is the point
right
here. It’s not about the military. It’s not about
ROTC. It’s
not about the cadets here on campus. Because guess what? The
military’s
going to get their officers no matter what. Whether they get it from
the south,
the state schools or anywhere else,
they’re going to get their officers. But I want
them to get their
officers from Columbia because you guys are going to be leaders of this
country. Okay? You’re going to be leaders of business, and I
want you to
understand that the military needs to be connected with you and not
disconnected. Thank you. [Applause]
Aarti Sethi: Hi.
My name
is Aarti Sethi, and I’m a graduate student of anthropology at Columbia
University. I’m not American, but I also come from a military
family. My father served for 30 years in the Indian navy, and
both my
grandfathers served for all their lives in the Indian army.
So I do know
something about what it is to grow up as a military child. I do not
support the
return of ROTC on campus, and I’m finding this debate here a little bit
odd,
because why should a university be in the business of equipping people
in the
military to better do their jobs in the first place? This is
not
something I understand. What is the assumption here? The
assumption here
is that a job in fact that the military should be doing, and it cannot
do
because it is obviously limited by the internal logic of being a
military in
the first place, must instead be done by civilians. So I
must, so the
university, a civilian institution, should be opening up people’s
minds.
It is by having friends who are not in the military that people in the
military’s horizons should be broadened. I think this debate
is very,
very skewed. Why should a civilian institution be forced to
take on the
mantle of exposing military leaders to other ways of thought?
This is a
conversation that the military should be having with itself.
If the
military wishes, why doesn’t it institute scholarships so that people
who serve
in the military go and get a two-year degree with no strings attached
and then
let them see if people want to come back to the military or
not? This is
how grant-making institutions work in the world. If you want
a
scholarship to apply, to go and get a university education, you apply
to a
grant-making body. A grant making body gives you a
scholarship and you go
get your education. Currently the military will give you a
scholarship,
but then you will have to serve for four years in the
military. If the
military is so concerned about the world view that its cadets and its
officers
inhabit, then the military should be asking its cadets and its officers
to find
ways of exposing them to other world views. But it should not be the
burden of
civilian institutions to be educating people within the
military. Thank
you. [Applause]
Fededah: Hello.
I’m
Fededah. I’m a first year in Columbia College, and I have a
very sort of
short question. What I don’t understand here is, we’re talking about
leadership, leaders, failed leadership. I find this really
interesting
because how many failed leaders do you have to have for the situation
to be the
way that it is right now in the Middle East, in Iraq and Afghanistan
and all of
the—in Vietnam in the past. Like how can we think that this
is an issue
of failed leadership and not an issue of the system? This
isn’t about
individuals, about leaders, about creating leaders. It’s an
issue of, I
think, the system. And Columbia’s not being asked to better
failed
leaders. It’s being asked to become a wheel in a system which
is a war
machine basically. And I don’t understand how on earth we managed to
connect
this to leaders and individuals only and not think about the general
system. Thanks. [Applause]
Richard Pierson: My name
is
Richard Pierson. I’m quite sure I’m the oldest person in the
room.
I was born in September of 1929 at a time when the world was going to
hell in a
basket. At that time I was able to understand from my father
who had had
to serve in the military that it was an experience that he remembered,
and he
helped me to remember it by sitting with me in 1941 when Pearl Harbor
was bombed,
and I could appreciate the military wars were a piece of what we were
going to
live through. I went to Princeton, where I served in the
Naval
ROTC. I graduated from Columbia Medical School in
1955. I
subsequently served on the [University] Senate. I chaired the
Education
Committee of the Senate for seven years in the [1970s], and I feel
myself well
immersed in Columbia University and in academic situations.
As a
professor of medicine, my very favorite thing is seeing the students
who are
coming into medical school now and how different they were when my
grandfather
graduated from this school in 1881, my father in 1918, I in 1955, and
my son in
1983, and I’ve got 12 grandchildren, three of whom are potential
followers. [Laughter] In any case, what’s that got
to do with what
we’re talking about here tonight? The powerful piece about
the NROTC for
me at Princeton, it prepared me for two years serving in the Naval
Medical
Corps in Taiwan in the 1950s. It prepared me for understanding what the
people
in the military were up against. It prepared me for
understanding the
people who were going to be my medical students. I currently
direct a
third-year preceptorship in medicine for St. Luke’s Hospital, a nearby
neighbor
of ours, and here I am exposed to people whose diversity is a very
powerful
argument. Their diversity helps each other, it helps my
generation, it
helps my children’s generation, and my grandchildren’s
generation. And I
believe that the presence of the ROTC has helped me a great
deal. I
believe it has helped many of the students whom I now see to understand
better
that it’s a complicated world they live in, and the capacity to accept
diverse
groups and diverse people and learn from them, I find a powerful
inducement to
continue teaching at the age of 81. [Applause]
Learned Foote:
Hello. My
name is Learned Foote. I’m a senior in Columbia College, and I believe
I’ll be
the first non-veteran or person who is serving to be a supporter of the
ROTC. I’ve supported the ROTC since 2008 in my sophomore year
on campus,
and I ask that you do anything you can to insure that students be able
to
participate in this program. Growing up in Michigan, I had a
close
relationship with those who serve and those who have given their lives
in the
Armed Forces. Many in my generation have no such experience.
This is
especially the case in elite institutions in the Northeast and in urban
populations which are underrepresented compared to the South and
Midwest.
It is essential that our students not think of military policy as
something
distant and separate from themselves as citizens of a
democracy. Support
for ROTC is not a support for any given policy, either foreign or
domestic. That is a decision for Congress to make.
For those of us
who are American citizens, that is a decision for us to make.
And we
cannot pretend that is not our decision. It is our
responsibility as
citizens of a democracy to be engaged with the health and with the
actions of
our military. I believe that it is time to look forward as
President
Obama stated in his State of the Union address. ROTC will
train the
future leaders of the military, and it will be beneficial for ROTC
students to
be in our classrooms, both for them to receive a Columbia education
with
everything that it teaches about civilization and multiculturalism, and
it is
incumbent for our students to be connected to those who
serve. There will
always be reasons not to support ROTC, and we would fool ourselves to
think
that all the reasons being listed now are the same ones that were
listed in
1968. Whether it’s transgender discrimination, age
discrimination,
disability discrimination, if you believe that that policy means that
the
program should not be on campus and it should be the responsibility of
other
schools, then you will never support ROTC. The world is not
perfect, and
we know this. But it’s our job not to sit and pretend that
it’s not
connected to ourselves, but to make it better. And it is also our job
not to
decide for the citizens, or for the students in our student body to
make their
decisions for them for how they serve, but instead allow them to have
the
options that they desire. Thank you.
[Applause]
Lauren Salz: Hi.
My name
is Lauren Salz. I’m a senior at Barnard College. I
just want to
point out that Columbia and the military have not always had such a
tumultuous
relationship. At one point in Columbia’s history, Columbia
was producing
more naval midshipmen than the Naval Academy. If you take a
look outside
Butler, there’s a commemorative that thanks Columbia for its generous
assistance and unceasing cooperation in the training of 23,000 officers
who
went from the U.S. Naval Reserve Midshipmen’s School to active duty in
World
War II to defend the principles which this university has always
upheld.
I think undeniably everyone in this room benefits from the United
States having
a strong military, whether or not you agree with the war in Afghanistan
or
Iraq. I noticed some people brought up, you know,
under-representation of
certain groups in the military, or overrepresentation. In
2008 I sat on
Low steps with thousands of my classmates when President Obama, or then
candidate Obama, spoke, and he said it’s also important that a
president speaks
to military service as an obligation not just of some but of
many. If you
go to small towns throughout the Midwest or the southwest or the south,
every
town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban
centers.
And I think it’s important for the president to say this is an
important
obligation. If we are going to war, then all of us go, not
just
some. So graduates of elite universities especially in urban
centers,
such as Columbia, are truly the people who are underrepresented in the
military. [Applause]
Carlos Blanco:
Hello. My
name is Carlos Blanco and I’m a junior in the College. I come
to you
representing not just myself, but
as
a member of my communities. I’m a student of color,
I’m a queer
student, and I’m a low-income student. All three of these
communities
[have] previously been targeted by
the military, whether domestically or in its international
affairs. As a
student of color, I think it’s very important that we remember the
investigations
that happened in the Army in World War II, when African-American
soldiers had
worse living conditions than even prisoners of war then. I
think it’s
also important that we remember in the ‘60s and ‘70s Mexican-American
students
at Texas public universities and how they were treated on
Mexican-American
Independence Day or on Texas Independence Day from Mexico, and the
culture of
racism that is [more or] less bred there. And as a queer
student I echo
the sentiments of my peers in that transgender students are not allowed
to
serve and how this still discriminates against them. As a
student of
color, I think we have to remember that, that it’s very painful to see
what
happens here and what happens when we have this culture of ROTC come
back. I’ve
seen what it does to my community, and I’ve seen how it preys on my
community,
and it’s not a culture that I want to see happen at my school, at my
place of
learning. I love Columbia and I don’t want to see this happen. So until the Army
continues an investigation
into women’s rights and until kids in high schools in the South Bronx
have the
same matriculation rates as Stuyvesant High School and until the Army
really
investigates into how it’s treating its people, will I even consider
having
this culture of war back onto my place of learning. Thank
you.
[Applause]
Ted Graske: I’m Ted Graske, and I’ll
defer that I’m the second-oldest person in the room.
But don’t let
the gray hair fool you, because I am the chairman or the spokesperson
for the
Columbia Alliance for ROTC. We communicate and have
supporters from all
the generations going back to—believe it or not—as far as 1941 and as
recent as
people from last year. So we’ve had a chance to cover the
spectrum.
My comments are going to be from outside the gates. They’ll be
different than
what you’ve been hearing tonight. In fact, I hope to rattle
the gates a
bit and give you the perspective of themes that come through from a
large body
of alumni. First, I will tell you most alumni we
talk to, and we talk
to hundreds, value their Columbia education. You never hear a
bad word
about the Core. They all love the Core. Don’t change it.
However, there
is one concern that rides through the alumni years, and that is the
perception
that Columbia, and this perception may be wrong, and these people may
be
entitled to their opinion, but the perception is Columbia is
anti-military. The net effect of that is that alumni feel
embarrassed,
disenfranchised, and some are very angry. They don’t sign
petitions. They
vote with their pocketbook. We think that they should be
donating and
making Columbia a better place, but they have been so discouraged by
apparent
attitudes and perceptions, real or imagined, it’s difficult.
Second
thing. Columbia has a rich tradition. Over the
years hundreds of
ROTC students have used the service in ROTC to launch careers as
doctors,
lawyers, professors. They value this experience, this package [if you
will],
and they would like to see the same opportunity that they had availed
to Columbia
students, especially in today’s economic times. And last but not least,
because
I’m running out of time, but I’m going to take a few extra
seconds. Many
of you in this room, as John and others have pointed out, will be in
the halls
of power. You will be in positions running the
military. You will
be the ones that make the decisions to send people to war, and you will
need to
have a relationship with the military that is communicative so you can
understand each person’s point of view and make a proper decision, and
not just on political grounds. And the place to
start that
interaction and conversation is in the dorms on Columbia campus or
Barnard or
what have you, because the more interaction you have now, the better it
will be
for the future. Thank you. [Applause]
Neal Rickner: Okay. So I’m
back. I appreciate the
comments
that have been made in response to my opening volley. I guess
I can’t
address all of them. I think what permeates most of the responses to my
comment
is an us-and-them sort of argument. That is really at the core of what
I would
hope that you take away from me tonight. Okay? So
the guy in the
orange sweater is telling you one thing. If you think about
it an hour
later, I would just say that us and them is the wrong approach. We are
you. You are us. Okay? Americans or
citizens of the world,
call us, call me, what you will. I have the same misgivings
about the
wars. I have maybe more so. But why would you want
to keep people
like me away at arm’s length? Why wouldn’t you want to have a
conversation? Because I think most of you feel, just given
most of your
comments, that you’re open to diversity, open to alternate lifestyles
or
whatever. Well, I’m challenging you. I’m
challenging you to live
what you preach. Talk about diversity. I’m
diverse. So talk
to me. Talk to me about the war, talk to me about what I learned over
there.
Because it’s probably not what you think. Do I feel like
Columbia has a
responsibility to train leaders? I don’t know.
Maybe, but it’s not that
Columbia has a responsibility to do it, but that as American citizens
or
citizens of the world, we all—it’s going to sound just slightly
cliché—we all
have something to benefit from each other, and if military leaders have
something to benefit from Columbia, why would you withhold that, and
why would
you be so closed off to just having a conversation?
[Applause]
Barry Weinberg: I’m Barry
Weinberg. I’m a junior in the College, and I’m also a member
of Everyone
Allied Against Homophobia. And like Learned Foote who spoke
before me, I
also grew up in the Midwest. I’m from Indiana, from
Indianapolis, and I
know a lot of people in the military. I have had family
members serve in
the military, and I attended a large urban school that was 80 percent
black and
Latino, and we had a large National Junior ROTC program at my high
school. So I know members of the armed services, and I know
ROTC
members. And I would like to sort of present two, I guess,
versions of
what’s going on here. One, to the gentleman in orange who
spoke before
me, that I agree. I think we are all the same, and
that in this case
we are all members of the greater Columbia community, and that
community can
include alumni, and professors and students, and this is a conversation
within
that community. And I feel that this conversation, no matter
how you feel
about the military, is productive. I think we are exposing
each other to
new ideas, convincing each other, maybe just giving each other
different angles
on the way we think, but I would like to take this out of the context
of
bringing ROTC back to Columbia, in that the gentleman in the orange
also spoke
that it was not a military policy, but a Congressional policy, and that
it’s
our job as Americans to vote for the people who enact those
policies.
It’s our job as community members of Columbia to exercise our political
mechanisms within campus to display our priorities and values, and I
would like
to reference President Bollinger’s letter from 2005 when this issue
came up:
“Our senate’s vote reflected a consensus of the Columbia community
after a year
of discussion of the issues by students, faculty, administrators, that
the
university should stand by its non-discrimination policy.
This policy
forbids, among other things,” and as an aside this includes gender
identity and
expression, “any form of discrimination based on a person’s sexual
orientation. The university has an obligation deeply rooted
in the core
values of an academic institution and the First Amendment principles to
protect
its students from improper discrimination and humiliation.”
And I think
that we’ve expressed that, and just to finish up, personally my
roommate is a,
was a transgender woman. She left for UCLA for a
doctorate. And
it’s my understanding that in the military you have a deep commitment
to those,
your friends, and she is my friend, and I can’t very well throw her
under the
bus when— [time runs out]
Ron Mazor: I’m
sorry.
Please finish your thought.
Barry Weinberg:
Sure.
–when just because I’m now allowed in the military.
[Applause]
Greg: Hey, I’m
Greg. One
thing I want to say is that when I first joined—I’m from Westport,
Connecticut,
which some of you may know is pretty affluent—and when I enlisted, the
point my
dad made to me was that all these people who had no relation to the
military
whatsoever suddenly knew someone who was in, and their concern for the
wars and
for general policy of what’s going on, you know, heightened
then. They
cared more. And he made it sound like I had single-handedly made these
people
care. And I just feel, and I’m sure that everyone in here who
has family
members in the military can relate to what I’m talking to, in that you
care
more because the people you love are at risk. Now the
Columbia student
body is not going to change if ROTC comes to this school.
It’s going to
maintain to be the opening, accepting community that it is.
And all
these, these complaints that people have about the military—and the
military’s
not perfect. I’m sure everyone can agree on that, especially
the
veterans. And these views of yours are going to be heard by
people who
are going to be enacting this policy. And obviously it’s not going to
happen
five years from now. I can’t tell you when it’s going to
happen, but the
more people that are in the military with their open-mindedness like
the
Columbia community will make those changes. And that’s a good
thing.
That’s a good thing for the country, and it’s definitely a good thing
for the
military. And as far as the whole recruiting in
underprivileged areas, I
think every enlisted person in here can agree that no one likes
recruiters [Laughter], and that I
hope and pray
that ROTC does not have that type of mission. And as far as everyone
has to say
about the whole Vietnam and talking about the past and talking about
’64, I
don’t know the history of what happened, but the bottom line is that
this isn’t
the ‘60s. It’s 2011. The views and the issues are very
different, and
these wars are certainly not the Vietnam wars.
Thanks. [Applause]
Sumayya Kassamali: Hi. My
name is Sumayya. I’m
a graduate student
in anthropology. First I wanted to point out something it
doesn’t seem
like has been clear. We
should
understand that ROTC already exists through the consortium. Students at
Columbia,
together with Fordham University and Manhattan College, are already
able and as
was mentioned already do enlist in the ROTC training
program. So
that option already exists, and I think that’s important. As
well, we
should note the Solomon [Amendment], through which universities are
threatened
with the loss of funding if they prevent recruitment on campus, and
those
familiar with Bollinger’s statement in 2002 know that he, despite the
existence
of DADT, at the time had to allow recruitment in the Law School because
they
were going to threaten to cut 70 percent of the University’s funding.
Second of
all, I want to respond to this notion that the military is distant from
us. So first of all for those of us that read the news, it’s
not
distant. Those of
us that see and are
outraged by the daily violences perpetrated by the military, it’s not
something
that’s far away. In fact, it’s something that we understand
and are
unequivocally opposed to. Second of all, for those who are on
the receiving
end of the military’s violence, whether those Arab and Muslim U.S.
citizens who
have been subject to extraordinary racial profiling and torture, with
the
direct complicity of the military; whether those students who have
families in
occupied Palestine, where Israel troops are both trained by American
officers;
whether those who grew up in Latin America under a notorious series of
dictators and over 50 interventions, dictators trained in the school of
the
Americas, again with the explicit participation, and in fact, direction
of the
U.S. military. These are not things that are far
away. They’re not
things that we don’t understand or we need a broader perspective about
or we
need more personal interaction with. In fact, we understand
them very
well.
And so
lastly, I want to say that the critique around DADT, which has now
become
around transgender individuals, that’s not enough. Our
opposition to the
military and to institutional ties between universities and the
military needs
to be unequivocal. We shouldn’t use the word “until”—the idea
that, you know, one policy will change, somehow then the
military will
become better. I think we need to be clear that our
opposition is against
militarization in general. And lastly, it’s 2011 and, yeah,
let’s look
around and let’s see the types of wars that the military’s engaged in,
whether
directly or indirectly through support, and Vietnam won’t feel so far
away [extended applause].
Ron Mazor: Have some quiet in the
audience please.
Nick Lomuscio: I am Nick.
Sorry
this will be my last time up here. I just wanted to address
some very
real concerns for the people in support of the ROTC that I think all
are
making. I can essentially, I think, whittle them down to
three: the idea
that Columbia students need to be more heavily engaged with veterans,
members
of the military, or potential future members of the military;
the idea
that Columbia produces leaders and leadership, and the idea we need to
democratize the military and who serves in it. So of these
three points,
it is no secret that, as I believe one person involved with the ROTC
pointed
out earlier, the people from Columbia who will be involved in
the ROTC
will be going to positions of leadership. That does not
democratize the
military. They will not be the ones on the front lines who
are getting
shot at. They will not be the ones who have to suffer through
the same
things that other people from, that are predominantly given to people
in
positions of low-income backgrounds. Secondly, if the
military feels, or
I’m sorry, if the veterans feel or potential future military members
feel that
they are not being actively engaged with students on campus, then I
will
propose here, tonight, as an alternative to the ROTC, because there is
no need
for ROTC to be here to have these conversations, to set up a student
organization specifically to have those conversations, to have
conversations
with veterans, with people concerning the military, and with people who
might
be opposed to the military. There is no need for the military itself to
be
involved in a conversation with the student body. It is not
Columbia
University’s responsibility to be involved with the military in having
that
happen on campus. It is Columbia University’s responsibility,
if it would
like to see those conversations happen, to establish separate student
groups
that will not be used as funnels through the military. Thank
you.
[Applause]
Ron Mazor:
I would like to have a quick break. And also we have two
mikes. So
if you want to split up the lines, we can do that too.
Marita Inglehart:
Hi. My
name’s Marita. I’m a freshman in Columbia College. And I just
wanted to
address sort of the idea of the like us-and-them mentality.
My dad’s a
veteran. We have a picture of him in our living room of him
in his
uniform, and he likes to talk about it sometimes. But
anyways… But
last summer, or no, two summers ago, I’m sorry, a childhood friend of
mine, you
know, we had spent holidays together. We had spent
Thanksgiving together,
everything. He joined the military, and a month before he
left, he told
me that he was gay. And all of a sudden I went from just being scared
for him
to being scared and pretty mad because he was doing what he thought,
you know,
was the best thing he could do for his country, and his country
wouldn’t even
respect him for that. And the thing is, I don’t know, if trans people are
a more
uncomfortable topic or, you know, what the issue is with why this isn’t
being
talked about, but I mean the message is that trans people are less than
everyone else who’s allowed in the military, and I mean, that’s
discrimination,
and I came here admiring Columbia a lot, and I want to continue to
admire
Columbia. And it’s nothing that I have against people in the military
because I
love someone in the military. It’s just that I don’t want to
support
discrimination, and I don’t want the institution that I’m part of to
support
discrimination. Thank you. [Applause]
Ron Mazor: Actually, we
have
the next mike because we have two mikes.
Luc Chandou: Good
evening. My name is Luc Chandou. I’m a student at
the Graduate
School of Business. I want to thank the board and Columbia
University in
general for giving us the opportunity to speak out. I think
it’s very
important. I know there’s an issue over Brown
University. The
president decided not to let certain members of the student population,
specifically those who had served in the military, to be a part of the
conversation. So I think it’s intelligent. Thank
you. Military
members, or veterans, who are also students of Columbia University can
provide
the most unbiased opinions given that they have served in both
communities. So with that, I’d like to give you a little bit
of
background about myself. I’m half French, half
American. Grew up in
Dallas, Texas. So I’ve been at the crux of two opposing
cultures my
entire life, and been attacked for being French. Given that,
I understand
again what’s been repeatedly said here is two opposing
viewpoints, and I
think we need to dismiss that and focus on the task at hand.
In response
to some of the comments made tonight, I’d like to say some things that
might be
repetitive but I think are important to note
again. Today’s military
is not a conscript military. People are in the military
because they want
to serve. You can’t hold that against them. If they decided
to give up
certain freedoms that coincide with military service, that’s their
choice. The
military follows orders that are handed out by the
government. The
military is a service and our policymakers are the people who make the
decisions that put that military into action. You cannot hold
an
individual soldier responsible for civilians’ deaths. Civilian deaths
and
casualties of war are an atrocity, and they should never happen, and
it’s every
military leader’s—any leader’s—objective to avoid that, keep that from
happening. But they are a reality of war. So to
label our United
States military as a war machine or baby killers, I think, is
foolish.
Eisenhower was president of Columbia University upon returning from
war.
I think that not trying to educate future leaders in the military with
what is
one of the most phenomenal liberal educations in the United States,
from one of
the oldest universities in the United States, is short
sighted. Again, if
you want to change an institution, you change it from within.
And our
officers that will come out of ROTC will serve on the front lines and
will be
shot at. Thank you. [Applause]
Aris
Delacruz:
My name is Aris Delacruz and I am a graduate of the School of General
Studies
and a former member of the Columbia Queer Alliance. Before
Columbia I
served as a first responder. I’m not anti-war, and I was a
member of the
Republican Party for much of my adult voting life. I am here
to debate
and learn from both sides, but I would like to make a few
points. To date
the ROTC has not presented a concrete and feasible proposal to
establish
themselves on this campus. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman
of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, has said that many colleges want the ROTC, but there
is simply
no forthcoming financial resources to do so. There is no
capacity to do
so. If you study the budget of the Defense Department, you
will see that
since 2007 the ROTC budget has actually gone up until 2010 to 2011,
when the
ROTC budget was cut by 3.3 percent, from $143 million to $138
million. There is every indication that, given this current
economic and
political climate, the budget trend will continue. If 40
percent of Army
officers are recruited from the south, why do they continue to recruit
elsewhere? Anyone who can competently operate a spreadsheet
and those who
think about performance objectives and adaptive leadership in metrics
would see
that this is foolish and has no basis in evidence. I’m also
not a
believer in the myth that Columbia must allow the ROTC on campus, and
simply
hope they’ll be more inclusive. We do not have the
institutional and
financial wherewithal to solve this-civil military gap. That’s not our
job. Thank you. [Applause]
Dan Morosani:
Good evening again. My name is Dan. I’d like to
thank the gentleman
in the gray sweater for making the best point tonight about the vast
chasm
between some people in the university community and the reality of
military
service. Sir [to another audience
member], you mentioned that the people who will be recruited
by ROTC will
not be ones in the front lines getting shot at. You could not
make a more
factually inaccurate statement than that. [Applause] You know, love it
or hate
it, I am a combat veteran of the Iraq war. As a lieutenant in the
Marine Corps
I was always in the first vehicle, the first one out of the helicopter,
the
first, or one of the first people on patrol. The casualties
statistics
among platoon commanders in combat on a per capita basis are by far
worse than
any other demographic. So in short, I’m not sure which
military you’re
referring to, in which enlisted soldiers or Marines take all the
casualties and
officers take none. It is certainly not ours. And
again, I think this
is very illustrative of, you know, the misinformation and the
stereotypes that
persist because of a community that does not have a good amount of
exposure to
the military. Thank you. [Applause]
Eduardo Martinez: My
name’s
Eduardo Martinez and I’m a freshman in Columbia College. I
actually was
not planning on speaking tonight, but sitting there I was horrified by
some of
the statements that were made and I felt compelled to come and
speak.
Just a little background: I come from a Cuban immigrant family and
they’re
fairly supportive of U.S. imperial products abroad, but as a student of
history, as Matt stated, I kind of saw there were a lot of historical
events
that involved the U.S. military that was an organization that I did not
want to
support. So I was kind of taken aback when someone stated
something along
the lines that this is not the ‘60s, and this is a totally new
situation.
But I think it would be a mistake to completely disconnect different
parts of
American history from the situation at hand now. I’ve seen
through
various atrocities that the U.S. military has been complicit in that
it’s not
an organization that I personally want to have on this campus and part
of this
community. And there’s also another statement mentioned about
the importance
of choice and the importance of freedom of choice, and have people be
free to
choose to participate in the military, but the problem with such a
statement is
that I don’t know how much choice the people who have been killed or
have been
attacked by the U.S. military in various countries and in unjustified
wars had
in that action. I do not see how the innocent civilians in
Iraq and
Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan and many other wars throughout
history had a
choice in that matter. Thank you.
[Applause]
Nicolas Barragan:
Hi. My
name is Nico Barragan. I’m a sophomore in Columbia College,
and I’m a
cadet in the Air Force ROTC. I just wanted to say that I do
support ROTC
and I do want it to come back to campus so that I can have an
opportunity to
serve without spending half of my weekend traveling and my friends who
are
somewhat interested can join without running into all these barriers
that they
run into being Columbia students. That’s probably I would say
the
ultimate goal for me. But there are some other things that I
want. For
example, I want to be able to serve my country to take a path to public
service
without being discriminated against myself. If my voice
sounds kind of
shaky, it’s because it is, and it’s because I’m mad and I’m hurt
because I have
been discriminated against so many times for being a cadet in
ROTC. More
so than for being an immigrant to the United States or any of my other
identities, for being a well- known straight ally on campus, for being
Hispanic, for any of these identities that I have I have faced
discrimination
more for being an ROTC cadet. I have been, I get dirty looks
every time I
walk across campus in my uniform. I’ve been called a
mercenary who kills
for money for my education, and while we’re in the vein of
discrimination, I
just want to say that ROTC is my ultimate goal, yeah, but I also think
that the
university should make more concessions to cadets who do wish to
participate in
ROTC, especially if it does not come back to campus because it really
is a path
of public service that, you know, I hold to the ideals that the
university
does, and I feel like the university should help me even a little bit
instead
of permitting, you know, this widespread opposition and, you know,
letting the
anti-military sentiment permeate the university and its reputation in
this
country. Thank you. [Applause]
Another voice: I’m going
to
say something that I don’t know if everyone will understand, but I’m
going to
say something about atmosphere. And when I walked into this
room, the
lady out front looked at me and said, You’re not going to blow us up,
are
you? Now don’t get scared. I’m not gonna.
This is a chord
organ. It’s an instrument, a musical instrument. So
I said to her,
well, I mean that would be quite an accomplishment if I could, and
people do do
that with music, but that’s about it. Okay.
[Applause]
Mike Zapata: All right,
gentlemen. My name is Mike Zapata again at the Business
School. So
I’d like to talk about two different aspects, and I don’t, I don’t
really enjoy
talking about this at all, but talk about diversity, low income, I can
tell you
that I grew up on government cheese so I understand low
income. As you
can tell, I come from some sort of Latin descent or Mexican- American
as well.
So I understand that aspect of diversity. My
brother-in-law said
this, quoted as a, when I got married, he said, you know, a Navy SEAL
officer
is like a unicorn: you hear about him, but you never see
him. He
was actually also a Mexican Navy Seal officer. The point is
that with the
ROTC does, what the military does is it gives you an
opportunity. So
anybody that comes from low income, anybody that comes from a different
diversity, whatever that is, it’s an opportunity to do great
things. And
I can also tell you that it’s a choice to do great things. So
they’re
making a choice when they join, however they get there. As
far as the
front lines, I can tell you that I made a choice, I went to the
university, the
university, I became an officer, I graduated from the university, I
went to the
Navy. But what I can also tell you is that the Navy doesn’t
pay for my
education. I actually paid for it myself. I put myself
through school,
and it was again a choice to go in and serve. So everybody
that goes in,
it is a voluntary military. The second aspect is
ROTC. These guys
are not the military. They’re your peers. They’re
going to be,
they’re the same age as you, they came from the same backgrounds as
you,
they’re going to be your friends. I have friends that did not
join the
military and I met in ROTC, and they’re some of my best
friends. One of
them is gay. I have gay friends. I mean, our
culture now is that
we, everybody we grow up with is, you know, we know
everybody. So it’s
not a big deal anymore like it used to be, you know, when we
were
kids. So again, these are going to be your peers, these are
going to be
your friends. You’re going to have an impact on
them as you, as
they progress and they go into the military. Again, change
from the inside.
I’ve changed the military from the inside from my perspective, my
diversity,
and if you bring ROTC here, it’s your opportunity to change
them.
When they become leaders, again, they can change from the inside. Thank
you. [Applause]
June : June,
Columbia
College sophomore. Several of my peers and I have brought up
the issue of
discrimination against transgender individuals in the military, which
is a huge
problem as I said before. But I saw someone has a sign back
there that says
one in three female soldiers experience sexual assault, and no one’s
come up to
talk about the issue of women in the military yet, and I feel the need
to bring
that up. The military is not a safe place for its women
soldiers. A
woman is more likely, an American woman is more likely to be raped by
her
fellow soldier in the military than she is to be killed by enemy fire
in the
war. And that is unacceptable in an American
institution.
Additionally, the American military is not an equal place for women.
Women are
barred from the front lines and combat roles, and that includes many
positions
that are higher paying and higher in status. So the military
is neither
safe for women nor is it equal. And, but discriminating against women
and
against transgender students, the military and ROTC should not be
allowed on
Columbia’s campus. [Applause]
Ben Preston: Hi. My name
is
Ben Preston. I’m a student at the Journalism School, and I’m
not supposed
to have an opinion so I’ll keep my comments brief. I think
that Columbia
University is a petri dish for the way we’d like society to be, and
society
includes everything, including the military. The United
States is a
country that is based on institutions and groups and teamwork, and
that’s
something that we can’t wish away, and I don’t think that we should do
it here
at Columbia University. Thank you.
[Applause]
Another voice: I just
wanted
to respond to the – I don’t know where he went – to the idea that ROTC
in any
way enables low-income students to make it Columbia University or to
any other
university. I think that if we were really interested in
low-income
communities and people of color in this country, we would step back
from the
military, maybe we would cut some of that budget and redirect some of
those
funds. So if Columbia University and all of the people here
who support
the military are really interested in those types of things, I think
there are
significantly more effective ways of doing that. Considering
again
documented and undocumented students, so to say that ROTC recruits, or
excuse
me, ROTC recruits undocumented students with the promise of
citizenship. Is
that a way that we want our students, low-income students, people of
[color],
that are undocumented to make it to Columbia University? Is
that the way
we want to go about that? I think, I mean, I think that’s a
completely
ridiculous idea. And to say that the ROTC is not the military
I think
also is confusing for a lot of us because we see a very
connected.
[Applause]
Ron Mazor: At this point
actually...not to interrupt, we’re taking about a ten-minute break and
we’ll
come back after that. It was nine o’clock, and it’s nine
fifteen. [To person at microphone]
I’m sorry. Next
comment, I promise.
TEN-MINUTE BREAK.
Another
voice: [in
mid-comment] ...coming
into
our endowments of this university and what weight that will
have on this
decision because that’s not impartial. Money is not impartial
ever, and
that must be examined and scrutinized by the University Senate in order
to have
the most, the most fair way to proceed in this whole process.
Thank
you. [Applause]
Lauren: Good evening. My
name
is Lauren. I’m a first year student here at SIPA. I
know we’ve had
a little bit of a break, but I just wanted to address the comment that
the
young lady here made that the military’s not safe for women and it’s
not equal
for women. I’m a Marine officer. I’ve been in the
Marine Corps for
eight years, almost nine years. The safest I’ve ever felt in
my life was
amongst my Marines, and every opportunity I ever had in the Marine
Corps was an
equal opportunity to rise through the ranks, to succeed, to have
leadership
opportunities. And I wouldn’t even be here at Columbia if it
wasn’t for
the values that I gained and the knowledge that I gained from being in
the
Marines and the opportunities I had to serve overseas, not just in
combat, but
many humanitarian missions. So having this conversation is so
important,
and I think what I’ve learned just in the last hour and a half is that
there
are a lot of misconceptions, and by not allowing even the idea of an
ROTC
program here at Columbia may feed into those misconceptions for the
future. So I hope that, I think we’re all very smart here and
that we’re
listening to each other. I have misconceptions, you all have
misconceptions, but I’m a Marine officer, and I just. Maybe I
don’t look
like one. I don’t look like Rudy or these gentlemen, and
that’s what made
me want to come to Columbia because of that diversity. So I
hope we can continue
that and not discriminate against those who want to serve their country
or even
just be part of an ROTC program. Thank you. [Applause]
Learned Foote: Sorry, back
again. But a couple of other people spoke twice so I figured
that I would
too. I just want to draw a distinction between two arguments
that are
being made here. The first one being the argument about
discrimination of
transgendered students. I understand these arguments and I
see where
they’re coming from. I disagree with them. Even before DADT
was repealed,
as a gay student, I thought it should return back to campus. The other
argument
that I want to address is people’s interpretations of foreign policy,
and
respectfully, I don’t believe that that has a role in this
conversation, the reason being that Columbia, whether it’s a
faculty
member, whether it’s a graduate student of any, what’s it called,
department,
or any member of any undergraduate college, should not be deciding what
other
people do with their lives. We have diverse political views,
we have
diverse interpretations of foreign policy, of America and its role in
the
world. It is not for Columbia to make our decisions for us in
terms of
what leadership we embark on. And furthermore it is
unimaginable to me
that Columbia would discourage its students from joining Congress, from
becoming the president of the United States, from any of these other
forces
that make the United States what it is. There is a unique
stigma attached
to military service which is inappropriate in my view. And
that’s all.
Thanks. [Applause]
Jessie Stillman:
Hello.
My name is Jessie Stillman and I’m a freshman at Barnard, and I’d first
like to
address what this woman before me said about sexual violence in the
military. I’m pretty sure that, I’m so glad that she never
had to
experience anything of what the numbers, the statistics about sexual
violence
in the military have to say today. But whether or not she saw that the
women
felt secure or not in her Marine Corps base, or whatever you want to
call it, the
Pentagon released this past month statistics saying that they believe
that only
nine percent of cases of sexual assault in the military are reported
and
investigated correctly. And I just, numbers don’t lie.
And
secondly I’d like to address this issue of “we need smart people in the
military, and we want to hear what Columbia students want.”
Well, we
Columbia students, we smart people, are telling you right now that we
don’t
want to serve in the military. We don’t want to support
anything the
military does, and we don’t believe in American imperialist
motives. So
whether or not you want smart people in your military, it’s a volunteer
organization, and don’t force us smart people to serve in an
organization that
doesn’t represent our views, that doesn’t support what we want America
to
do. Thank you very much. [Applause]
Michael Arson: Good
evening. I’m Michael Arson. I’m a first-year
student here at
SIPA. I just want to make one specific point, and that’s
namely the idea
that there maybe is not the market so to speak here at Columbia for
ROTC, and I
think that’s a fallacy. I missed the first fifteen minutes so
I’m not
quite sure if this was addressed. But I remember back a
decade ago when I
was applying to schools, I had to cross almost all the Ivies off my
list
because of the fact that they didn’t have a ROTC program, and I was
going to be
doing ROTC at whatever college I was going to be going to.
While there
might be not a huge demand for ROTC among the current student body, the
people
who are out there who are, who potentially can apply to Columbia, there
are
people interested in ROTC. And if you bring a
program back to
Columbia, even though there are cross-town affiliates that they can do,
having
an indigenous ROTC program will service a certain segment of the
society.
I know it doesn’t have really the moral debates or anything like that,
but it
has to do with fact that there is a market out there for people who
want to
come to Columbia and participate in an ROTC program, and while, you
know, the
fact that there doesn’t exist one currently I think has a part to play
with
that. So it’s just my piece. Thank you. [Applause]
Nathan Ashe: Hi. My name
is
Nathan Ashe. I’m a sophomore in the College. I just
wanted to
address all the misconceptions going around. I think the
gentleman in the
orange sweater—I’m sorry, I forgot your name—but you talked about the
importance of dialogue. I just wanted to posit that we can
have many
dialogues that don’t necessitate the return of ROTC to
campus. I think
it’s great that we have so many veterans and so many cadets, well, not
so many
cadets here, but we do have cadets here. And I think we can
have so many
dialogues and learn so much from each other. We split up during the
break into
groups who agreed with each other, which I think goes against what
everyone was
saying. So if we can just have more dialogue before we jump to any
conclusions,
and really get to know each other and know everyone’s personal
experience, I
think we should take it slow before we jump back into returning or not
returning ROTC to campus. Thank you. [Applause]
Daniela Garcia: Hi.
Daniela. I’m a CC senior. I also just wanted to
bring up the point
that this idea that personal ideology should not affect whether or not
we bring
ROTC back on campus. Whether or not you personally believe
what I believe
about the U.S. military, the rate that it’s going and the fact that
ROTC
candidates and veterans here brought up that the military does need to
be
changed, and the statistics that were cited, and the fact that another
gentleman mentioned that he does not want ROTC recruiters on campus, I
think
this shows that there are flaws in the military. And also if
we talk
about the possibility of influencing those who will go on to the
military,
we’re talking about, you know, the people who are successful, who have
good
stories from the military, who come back and who can, you know, then
join
business, go on with their lives. That’s great.
Like I’m really
glad that you guys had successful experiences and were able to
contribute to
your own, you know, lives in a successful way, but if we’re going to
talk about
what happens to soldiers who go to the front line, I think one thing we
haven’t
mentioned is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—how there’s such a high
rate of
unemployment for vets who come back from the military because of the
horrible
atrocities that they have witnessed and have committed. So,
you know, my
heart goes out to you guys. Like I hope that you haven’t had
those
experiences. But if we’re going to talk about what we want
for Columbia
students, how do we envision their future, one of my best friends,
Vernon
Seringo, is now—I forgot his rank; he would kill me—but he’s in the
Army.
He joined because he believed in the ideology of the
military. He wanted
to make his country better, and the first e-mail that I got back from
him when
he was stationed in Afghanistan—he's in a mountain division—it was the
same
line repeated over and over, and I had to scroll down several
pages. It
just said, “Two hits to the body, one to the head. Two hits
to the body,
one to the head.” That’s the kind of psychological effect
that is
happening to people who go to the front lines. Is that what
we really
want for our students? Thank you. [Applause]
Barry Weinberg: So again
I’m
Barry Weinberg. I’m a junior in the College. And
I’d specifically
like to address the ideas that Learned Foote just brought up.
The orange
hoody. And that’s that our personal opinions on the military
and on society
as students shouldn’t matter because we should let students make their
choices. To some extent I agree. I think that
students should
absolutely be able to be in ROTC and do cadet programs if they choose,
and I
think that’s fine. It’s, we do have certain values at
Columbia that are
liberal, humanistic values that are exemplified in our Core, and that’s
one of
them is tolerance of what other people do. But that doesn’t mean that
our
university has to compromise on its values, which we’ve already stated
and
voted on in our non-discrimination policy, to have that program
here.
People can do what they want. No one’s suggesting
otherwise. And I
think that fundamentally the idea that this, that this dialogue, you
know, for
or against should decide the military’s presence on campus, you know,
is
interesting and is worthwhile to be having. But I don’t, I
really am
somewhat irritated that it’s being talked about as if the outcome of
this
discussion should be the return or could be the return of ROTC to the
campus, simply
because we have principles that we’ve already written down and affirmed
and
reaffirmed several times against discrimination, and to have this
discussion as
if that were something that we could simply forget about because there
are all
of these good things for or bad things against the military is very,
very
frustrating. Because I don’t think that it’s a legitimate
possibility to
return an ROTC program to this campus whether you’re for or against it,
because
we have a policy against it. And that’s unfortunate, but it’s
our values
and it’s our community. And so if there’s a larger
community-wide value
shift that I don’t know about, then please someone correct me and we
might as
well change our wording in our policy too. [Applause]
Sean Udell: Hi.
My name
is Sean Udell again. I’m
a senior in
Columbia College. There are just a couple of things that have
come up
that I’ve a question and want to just bring up. One is that
people who
want to engage in ROTC are not discriminated against on
campus. If they
choose to do ROTC, they can very well go to across the town, uptown,
downtown
and do ROTC. People who are trans and people who don’t fall
into the
category of what the military thinks is appropriate for their members
don’t
have a choice whether or not they can be in the military, and it’s up
to our
university to stand up for those students who don’t have a
choice. Beyond
that, I’ve been a little disturbed by the rhetoric that suggests that
the only
smart people are ones that go to Ivy League institutions. My
sister is
probably the smartest person I know. She’s at the military academy for
the Air
Force, the Air Force Military Academy. And that was a choice
she
made. She wanted to fight in the Air Force, and I think
that’s
great. And I support her 100 percent. She didn’t
come to Columbia
cause she wanted to go to the Air Force. And that was her
choice.
My choice was to come to Columbia because I wanted to be in a place
that was
inclusive for all. And so I think we need to stand by our principles
and make
sure that people can continue to have the choice to join institutions
that
support all people. Thank you. [Applause]
Aris Delacruz:
Hi. Aris
Delacruz again, and I’m a graduate of the School of General
Studies. I
just wanted to thank you again for the opportunity to contribute to
this
debate, and so I just wanted to make a few points in response to some
of the
things that were said, and I wanted to agree with Sean that to somehow
think
that Ivy League or elite institutions are better than other
institutions
actually denigrates the members of the military who attend those other
institutions. So we’ve just completed the largest and most
successful
both capital and financial campaign that any institution has ever
undertaken in
the history of the universe. So I don’t think that alumni
donations are
actually relevant to this debate. They are in fact on the
periphery. And
even if it were, why would we link the capacity of alumni like myself
to donate
with the autonomy of the university to make its decisions for
itself. And
then I also wanted to point out just one more time. I’m not
sure cause I
made the point clearly enough last time. That no official
representative of the
ROTC has expressed any support whatsoever of bringing it here to
Columbia
University. And also when writing your report, I hope when
you do talk
about the alumni donations or that capacity that you have the actual
scientific
evidence to back it up. You simply can’t just say that, you
know, alumni
donations could be harmed or alumni donations could benefit from an
action for
or against this. Thank you. [Applause]
Dan Morosani: I
hope you’re not getting tired of me. A few
things. I’ve
noticed, it’s kind of striking, and I hope I don’t end up eating up my
words
here in a second, but every single veteran who has come up here and
spoken has
been in support of ROTC. Beg your pardon.
Ron Mazor: Please address
the
panel.
Dan Morosani: Oh, I’m
sorry. And, you know, we had the lady who, or several people
who’ve
spoken of sexual assault and the military being such a dangerous place
for
women. Yet, Lauren, who actually served in the Marine Corps
and knows the
Marine Corps, you know, spoke in support of the Marine Corps.
Similarly
we’ve had people talk about how traumatized and traumatizing and
terrible
experience serving in the military is. Yet I and many of the
other
veterans here, I think most or all of whom are combat veterans, you
know, it
certainly wasn’t a cake walk, but we came back better people.
And I’m
just struck by the extent to which the sort of cognitive dissonance
between the
people who’ve actually lived through it and know about it and the
people who
are basing their opinions on at least secondhand sources. And
finally I
was struck by the argument by the gentleman who I think just left who
said that
people who are forced to go across town to serve in the military aren’t
actually discriminated against. With all due respect and
being cognizant
of making historical parallels, that seems very similar in logic to me
to the
idea that someone who is forced to sit in a particular section of a
restaurant
or bus is not being discriminated against. [Murmurs
from the audience]
Ron Mazor: Audience,
please.
Another voice: I mean, if you are
for, if you’re saying that someone cannot do something on campus and
that the
campus is, they’re not good enough for it, it’s discriminatory, pure
and
simple. Thank you.
Another voice: Way to
go. Way to go. [Applause]
Ron Mazor: No catcalls
please.
Another voice: I was just compelled to speak by
that one
comment. I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and extremely,
extremely
offensive to equate the lack of civil liberties to people before the
1960s
civil rights movement, especially people of color, to people being
[discriminated] against for being in the military. I don’t
think a
strange look is in any way, shape, or form equal to not being able to
sit in
the same restaurant, to have the same wage for employment, even have
the same
prospects for employment. I’m just horrified that someone had the
audacity to
come up and say that. Thank you. [Applause]
Madeleine Elish:
Hi. My
name is Madeleine Elish. I’m a Ph.D. student in the
Anthropology
Department. As I, I’ve been sitting in the back, and I’ve
been really,
really scared to come up here and say what I have to think because
there are a
lot of my colleagues in the department who are here, and I’m afraid
that when I
express an opinion which I know is not the dominant one in the
environment
where I am, I am going to be somehow judged in a certain way.
And I’m
afraid of those repercussions because I am in support of the return of
ROTC to
campus. Do I agree with the U.S. military as an
institution? I’ve
been to protests that are against all of our wars. I do not
believe in
the military’s, well, the imperial wars that we’re waging right now.
But I
think that actually what’s at stake in allowing ROTC to return to
campus is the
students and is the individuals who will be participating in
ROTC. And I
think, I think that, I think that really protesting ROTC in this way
demonizes
the individuals who will be serving in our military and who have served
in our
military. Someone raised the excellent point that
Columbia wouldn’t
discourage students from joining Congress or becoming president, and it
should
be noted that those are the bodies that actually authorized the wars
that we’re
currently engaged in. And so I think that it’s much more worthwhile for
Columbia as an institution who is a leader in dialogue, who is
understood –
sorry, I’m being really inarticulate, I’m really nervous.
Columbia is a
part of academia, and I think that when there is the widespread
resistance of
institutions such as at Columbia to not allow ROTC on campus, it says
academia
has checked out of the picture and we will not engage with views that
are not
like our own. And so I think, I believe that having ROTC on campus
would lead
to our principles of inclusion and diversity of values. So
that’s what I
have to say. Thank you. [Applause]
Aarti Sethi: Hi.
I’m
Aarti. I’m in fact Madeleine’s colleague in the Anthropology
Department,
and I’m very glad she spoke. And I, I take very seriously the
questions
that she raised, and I don’t think she should feel in any way scared or
embarrassed because what she’s talking about is in fact precisely the
reason
why I opposed ROTC. I think we are both concerned with
diversity and with
the fact that within a university community there should be the space
to engage
different points of view and to have fundamentally different values and
ideas
about life and ideas about the good. And I think the
underlying
[issue]--we're actually not discussing today only whether we should
have ROTC
on campus or not as policy. I think the question we’re asking
ourselves
is, What do we as a university community think of the space of the
university?
What is the university itself for? And that is why we need to
make, I
think, a distinction between personal conversations and institutional
affiliations.
I do not think anybody here, least of all me—I've already said
this. I
come from a military family, my father served in one of the wars that
India was
engaged in. None of us, I don’t think any of us here, even
those who
opposed ROTC, are against talking to people within the military or
having a
conversation with people within the military. I think the
question we are
raising is whether there is a distinction between a personal
conversation and
being open to people’s personal views about the good and whatever it is
that
they wish to do with their lives, including serving in the military,
and an
institutional affiliation between the university and the military. And
I think
we need to keep these things very, very clear in our heads.
This is why
there is something fundamentally coercive about a policy that demands
repayment
for your education as compulsory military service.
I’m only going
to restate what I said earlier. If the military is so
concerned with
giving its members a fantastic education, it should simply, why does it
not
institute scholarships where people are then, after that, free to
choose
whatever their paths may be in life, including not joining the
military? But
this the military cannot do, right, because part, fundamental to a
military is...
[time runs out].
Ron Mazor: Finish your
thought. Thank you. Also at this point we’re going
to close.
Everyone standing up may still make a comment, but at this point no
more new
people stand up to the mikes, please, so we can finish on time. Thank
you.
Luc Chandou: Just quickly
in
response. The military has sort of a business arm.
It has to
function as a business, have money to train people. It’s understandable
that it
requires people to serve if it’s going to pay for their education.
That’s just
a side note. But to the point about institutional connection between
Columbia
and the military, I am that connection. I’m
standing right in front
of you. We’re having a discussion this evening. Dan
represents that
institution. Every member here who served in the military Columbia
looked at
and decided to include it in the university here and on
campus. So if any
person who’s against bringing ROTC on campus is willing to come and
tell me
that I’m not a part of Columbia, that I shouldn’t be a part of
Columbia, that I
somehow represent something that is against Columbia, please do so
afterwards
or come up to me at any point in time. My name is
Luc
Chandou. I’m at Columbia Business School. I’m a
second year.
Again, I extol the virtues of a liberal classical education.
I hope to
take that—I'm currently out of the military, but at some point I might
return
to it—I hope to take that education and feed that into the public
policy
somehow. Educate the decisionmakers, educate the bureaucrats into how
to best
implement the tool that is the military. Thanks.
[Applause]
Stas: Hi guys.
My name
is Stas. I am a student at GS. I am a
Siberian-born, Jewish, former
paratrooper. So if you want something for the melting pot,
there you
go. I just wanted to bring up a point, enlighten a few people
here,
hopefully on record just so we don’t have as much as this misinformed
thing
going on. Columbia University participates in the blood drive on
campus, the policy of which is, they cannot accept blood
donations from
homosexual men, as this was instituted by the FDA. Now this
sort of makes
the other points regarding homosexuals and transgenders serving in the
military
or not being able to serve in the military more or less moot because
people
need to understand [that] these are all policies instituted not by the
military, but by policymakers that are way above them. So as we
continue to
participate in the blood drive, believing that the actual fundamental
system is
somehow necessary and is somehow appropriate and should belong on
campus, so
should we support ROTC. It’s the same general idea. Thank
you.
[Applause]
Another voice: I just want
to
thank everyone who shared an opinion. You know, this is
obviously a very
emotional topic. But I think, hopefully, I’ve learned a lot
by being
here. And this is dialogue that should continue, and the
gentleman who just
spoke offered to buy everyone a drink afterwards if you want to keep
talking
about it [Laughter]. But I guess to sort of
respond to
that, I don’t see the blood drives as a comparable example.
First of all,
because one form of discrimination shouldn’t lead to more and justify
more, but
also because the relationship between Columbia allowing a blood drive
truck to
drive on and collect blood and drive off is a little different than the
relationship we’re proposing with the military. So I just
want to enforce
my belief that the reason I think we can’t bring back ROTC is not a
punishment
to the military because of anything it stands for. It’s not a
punishment. It wouldn’t matter for me if ROTC was a
community-service
organization. If we do not have any organizations that
enshrined within
the institution of this university and the blood drives are not
enshrined
within the institution as like a group on campus We don’t
allow any
institution that doesn’t allow certain segments of our population
in. So
it doesn’t matter that it’s the military. For me it doesn’t
matter what
their policies are, it doesn’t matter what their actions are, it
matters that
it’s an organization that discriminates against certain people and
doesn’t let
anyone participate. And that doesn’t matter that ROTC didn’t
decide that
that was the policy, and it doesn’t matter if we could potentially
change
minds. It matters that we would be allowing an institution
that does not
allow certain Columbia students to participate. That’s against our
university non-discrimination
code. And so to me that above all else is why we can’t, we
can’t bring it
back, no matter how we feel about the military. [Applause]
J. C. Kaplan: My name is
J. C.
Kaplan. I’m a Latin-American studies student in
GSAS. I’m a 21-year
member in the United States Army. I’m still an active duty
member of the
Army, and I’m here studying here at Columbia with the Army
funds. So I’m
still very much a part of that other part of my life which is the
military. This discussion for me is new to me. I
went to ROTC at U
Mass Amherst where we had a small presence, but not a very contentious
one. It certainly wasn’t, you know, people weren’t beating
down the doors
to join ROTC, but we had a robust enough group that every year I think
we commissioned
about 15-20 people. There’s been a lot of different comments made this
evening
and a lot of different topics, and one of the things that puzzles me
is, are
you all, and you, generally I’m referring to the
students here, is
this a, are we protesting ROTC because of the discriminatory practice
(which,
you know, that I can certainly, I respect that point of
view)? Although
there’s also been points made about the overall general philosophy of
what is
the military and for what reason is our United States military and what
is
their application. Because actually those are very different
points. And if we are taking that higher ground that we
oppose the
military per se, then by extension, you should not be accepting United
States
government dollars to fund my tuition here and I should not be
here. I
mean, you can’t have it both ways. And obviously this decision that was
made
back in 2005 and then whatever year, I guess during the Vietnam war
that it
originally was made, you are all being hypocritical if you’re trying to
have it
both ways. So either you completely ban the military and its
presence
here, which again if that’s the decision that’s made, that’s the
decision
that’s made, or you have everybody here. But you can’t have
some
institutions in the military not be here like ROTC, but then have
other,
there’s about two or three dozen active duty officers across [the
Department
of] Defense being funded here right now at Columbia. So we can’t be
here then
if they can’t be here. It doesn’t make sense. It’s
not coherent as
a policy of the university. I’ll conclude by saying that
serving in the
army two thirds of all officers every year, their commission come
through the
university campuses. And for those of you who question the
importance of
universities in that role, I suggest you look at civil-military affairs
and see
the importance that that is for our democracy.
Thanks. [Applause]
Ron Mazor: At this point
our
event’s concluded. We will be meeting again next Tuesday at
seven-thirty in
[309] Havemeyer Hall. If you would like to speak or haven’t
had a chance
to speak, please feel free to come then. Thank you very much
and we look
forward to seeing you next Tuesday.
END OF MEETING