View Full Version : Wounded Vet Heckled at Columbia
Disgusting.
Hero's unwelcome
Wounded Iraq vet jeered at Columbia
By ANNIE KARNI
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN#ixzz1EWWtSAf C
Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.
"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.
Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.
"It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting," said Maschek. "There are bad men out there plotting to kill you."
Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds.
Maschek, who is studying economics, miraculously survived the insurgent attack in Kirkuk. In the hail of gunfire, he broke both legs and suffered wounds to his abdomen, arm and chest.
He enrolled last August at the Ivy League school, where an increasingly ugly battle is unfolding over the 42-year military ban there.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN?sms_ss=faceb ook&at_xt=4d614bfde4355b01%2C0
Surgicalcric
02-20-2011, 12:25
Ignorance is bliss for many people.
They would rather deny the existence of an enemy at the gates than admit they are too weak to face the enemy.
Crip
Abu Jack
02-20-2011, 12:26
Good for him for standing up. That's what happens when sheep who have been part of the flock their whole lives finally meet a sheepdog.
Doc Diego
02-20-2011, 12:36
Good for him. Maybe he can wake up a few sheeple while he's there.:lifter
There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion on going to war. I don't have a problem with their point of view on Iraq or Afghanistan. I do have a problem with their behavior and disrespect. That is what is shameful.
FWIW, the Columbia Spectator's digital morgue of articles on ROTC dating back to 2007 is available here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/terms/tags/rotc).
FWIW, part two, a passage in the article linked in the OP states:A group of 34 faculty colleagues, including historian Kenneth Jackson and former Bloomberg adviser Esther Fuchs, plan to announce their support of ROTC tomorrow.
That statement of support is available here (http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/2010Spectator.pdf).
Professor Jackson is a former president of both the Organization of American Historians and the Society of American Historians--the two major professional organizations for American historians--as well as a winner of the prestigious Bancroft Prize for Crabgrass Frontier in 1986 <<LINK (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eguides/amerihist/bancroft.html)>>.
The fact that Professor Jackson supports ROTC at Columbia suggests that attitudes towards the American armed services in the Ivory Tower are changing, notwithstanding the inexcusable asshattery of a handful of undergraduates.
The Reaper
02-20-2011, 13:17
I guess he thought that he had First Amendment protection.
Obviously, he failed to read the liberal/progressive rule book.
Dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.
Where is the POTUS on this issue?
TR
The behavior of those students who heckled a fellow student in this instance was simply ignorant and repugnant - class always shows.
Good luck with your studies Mr. Maschek - thank you for your service.
Guess these asshat students don't want the Dream Act either.
Kinda sounds like the Columbia students were enrolled in the PoliSci Department's Tea Party 101 class so they can attend Town Hall meetings and behave accordingly when they grow up.
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
When I see people like that in public around here. I just think, if they burst into flames right now. I wouldn't even kick sand on them. I believe the new name for them is Hipsters. Another word for Pussy.
The Reaper
02-20-2011, 14:54
Kinda sounds like the Columbia students were enrolled in the PoliSci Department's Tea Party 101 class so they can attend Town Hall meetings and behave accordingly when they grow up.
Just sayin'...
Richard :munchin
Hmm.
Was SSG Maschek someone's elected representative? Were they debating his voting record? I must have missed that one.
Did a Tea Party member at a town hall meeting call some else a racist? What is the relevance of that analogy to this discussion of student intolerance of opposing viewpoints?
There is no excuse for the students' behavior. SSG Maschek was there to voice an opinion as a student. A right he has paid a high price for and which should permit him to freely express his viewpoint.
I think your analogy is flawed and your comments are over the line with this one.
TR
Kinda sounds like the Columbia students were enrolled in the PoliSci Department's Tea Party 101 class so they can attend Town Hall meetings and behave accordingly when they grow up.
Astounding.
Does anyone think a student like Maschek was naive enough to think his appearance in front of such a forum at a university like Columbia over a long-standing 'hot button' campus political topic would not garner such a response from his fellow students? :confused:
I don't.
I think the realm of public discourse in politics remains every bit as rancorous today as it ever has been, whether on a college campus over an issue like this one or in a town hall meeting over an issue like national health care, and the reporting of such events every bit as slanted depending upon the editorial leanings of who is doing the reporting.
I also think that such boorish behavior reflects most upon those who behave in such a way - no matter where it comes from or who does it.
Richard :munchin
How about those students at Columbia just shut the fuck up and go down to Texas and help build a house.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32478
I'm sorry for my language.
Just sayin'.........and so it goes......YMMV
Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds.
Maschek, who is studying economics, miraculously survived the insurgent attack in Kirkuk. In the hail of gunfire, he broke both legs and suffered wounds to his abdomen, arm and chest.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN?sms_ss=faceb ook&at_xt=4d614bfde4355b01%2C0
That's totally unwarranted and pisses me off about as bad as anything ever has. Somebody needs corporal punishment.
........
I also think that such boorish behavior reflects most upon those who behave in such a way - no matter where it comes from or who does it.
Richard :munchin
So his actions were boorish?
ZonieDiver
02-20-2011, 16:24
How about those students at Columbia just shut the fuck up and go down to Texas and help build a house.
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32478
I'm sorry for my language.
Just sayin'.........and so it goes......YMMV
To paraphrase John Wayne as Ethan Edwards in 'The Searchers' - "That'll be the damned day!"
So his actions were boorish?
Based on the article, I certainly don't think so; do you? :confused:
Richard
Based on the article, I certainly don't think so; do you? :confused:
Richard
No, just wondering if you thought he was from your post.
After all, he knew better than to try and talk about such a subject in such a place.
"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.
Aside from these students being complete douchebags, I don't understand the racist comments. Are transgender folks a considered a different race now?
Richard said:
Does anyone think a student like Maschek was naive enough to think his appearance in front of such a foum at a university like Columbia over a long-standing 'hot button' campus political topic would not garner such a response from his fellow students?
I wouldn't expect every students to agree with this American hero, but I would think they would have the good manners to not boo and jeer. But then again, I have been accused of being naive at times.
They have dishonored their university, their parents and their country.
Saturation
02-20-2011, 17:14
They have dishonored their university, their parents and their country.
AMEN!
ArmyStrong
02-20-2011, 17:40
The "laughing and jeering" part of this article has pissed me off to no end.
What happened to being able to respect another man's opinion, even if you disagree with him? SSG Maschek has earned that respect a hundred times over. These clowns need a good ass kicking to set them straight. :mad:
Aside from these students being complete douchebags, I don't understand the racist comments. Are transgender folks a considered a different race now? The argument is two fold. First, the American armed services disproportionately fill their ranks with citizens who are not white. Second, the American armed services fight immoral wars against nations populated by non whites. (Source is here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/08/opinions-mixed-usenates-first-rotc-town-hall).) FWIW, these two arguments arc back at least to the 1960s. While the former has been discredited by scholars including Ronald Spector, the latter has not quite been hashed out by eggheads in a way that would please Hegel.
I wouldn't expect every students to agree with this American hero, but I would think they would have the good manners to not boo and jeer. But then again, I have been accused of being naive at times.Is it unreasonable to expect young people to respond passionately to a topic in which they're emotionally invested?
They have dishonored their university, their parents and their country.MOO, this sentiment is a bit extreme. Americans--both citizens and citizen soldiers--have sacrificed a lot for our freedoms. How does exercising freedom of speech--regardless of our own personal opinions of that speech--dishonor America? (And if we really want elite universities to be populated by students who don't get hot and bothered about something, we may as well pull the plug on the entire American educational system right now.)
Two additional points. First, if we who want ROTC battalions on as many campuses as possible are going to get this upset over jeering, how are we going to make it through the long haul as (hopefully) more battalions come on line and aspiring officers and their instructors encounter lingering dissent?
Second, yesterday, TR offered what IMO is a sustainable winnable approach to the 2012 elections when he spoke of making "inroads" among some of the president's core constituencies <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=377363&postcount=27)>>. While he was specifically referring to non whites and to women, I think the sentiment [that] "we need to expand our inroads to these groups, not offend them" also applies to today's students.
Granted, this kind of outreach with students isn't always easy. (The fact that I've made a living counting beans of various types the last eleven years rather than teaching speaks volumes.) Still, when we let our umbrage get in the way of grappling with the complexities of issues such as ROTC on college campuses, whom do we really help?
My $0.02.
Someone needs to teach all those jackasses a lesson in respect at the very least.
These little pissant students could use a couple of good old fashioned bitch-slaps for their rudeness and lack of respect!
Holly
Masochist
02-20-2011, 18:28
Second, the American armed services fight immoral wars against nations populated by non whites. (Source is here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/08/opinions-mixed-usenates-first-rotc-town-hall).) FWIW, these two arguments arc back at least to the 1960s. While the former has been discredited by scholars including Ronald Spector, the latter has not quite been hashed out by eggheads in a way that would please Hegel.
Well explained.
Is it unreasonable to expect young people to respond passionately to a topic in which they're emotionally invested?
How does exercising freedom of speech--regardless of our own personal opinions of that speech--dishonor America? (And if we really want elite universities to be populated by students who don't get hot and bothered about something, we may as well pull the plug on the entire American educational system right now.)
It is not unreasonable to expect young (or old, for that matter) people to respond passionately. But passionately does not need to be ignorantly or obnoxiously. One can respond with a passionate argument without resorting to booing or laughing. For some that believe they are elite for attending an "elite" school, one would think they could find it in themselves to not act boorish and immature. Is this how they will act after graduation, when confronted with opposing viewpoints in the boardroom? It's a matter of common courtesy and maturity.
Barbarian
02-20-2011, 18:49
That's the kind of dishonorable behavior I would expect from hipsters (read idiots) whom are living and attending an ivy league school on their likely wealthy parent's dime. These fools consider themselves to be intellectuals, when they've most likely never had to struggle for anything, including safety or freedom, which has been secured on their behalf by SSG Maschek and others like him.
These little pissant students could use a couple of good old fashioned bitch-slaps for their rudeness and lack of respect!
Holly
Frickin' aye, girl!
FWIW, these two arguments arc back at least to the 1960s. While the former has been discredited by scholars including Ronald Spector...I could discredit that accusation through "first hand" knowledge.:cool:
Stay safe.
It is not unreasonable to expect young (or old, for that matter) people to respond passionately. But passionately does not need to be ignorantly or obnoxiously. One can respond with a passionate argument without resorting to booing or laughing. For some that believe they are elite for attending an "elite" school, one would think they could find it in themselves to not act boorish and immature. Is this how they will act after graduation, when confronted with opposing viewpoints in the boardroom? It's a matter of common courtesy and maturity.A long time ago, a lower middler at one of America's most prestigious preparatory schools made a snarky about the California State University system. The joke was meant to ease his anxiety as his faced his first Hell Week. Unfortunately for him, the dean of students, Mr. P. Rick Mahoney, heard the remark and called him into his office. The Socractic ass chewing that followed lasted about fifteen seconds. The student in question never made that type of comment again. (Fortunately, he had many other barbs and arrows in his quiver of trash talking.)
Many years later, the same student was on the campus of the University of Texas when the event described here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=257139&postcount=3) took place.
The point I'm trying to make is that, notwithstanding the popular (mis)conceptions about the Ivory Tower, there are a whole lot of students who will learn what they may need to know if we don't confuse the humbling lesson with the humiliating lesson.
YMMV.
silentreader
02-20-2011, 19:21
Where is the POTUS on this issue?
TR
Sir,
I believe that the President addressed the ROTC issue fairly strongly in his State of the Union. Unless you're asking why Obama hasn't criticized these students, in which case I think the answer would be that they don't merit his time.
There is nothing wrong with a difference of opinion on going to war. I don't have a problem with their point of view on Iraq or Afghanistan. I do have a problem with their behavior and disrespect. That is what is shameful.
I agree with this. One of the cornerstones of productive discourse is respect. While I have no problem with passionate debate, I don't see how the dissenters advance their cause by acting like spoiled children.
That being said, reading this article (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/08/opinions-mixed-usenates-first-rotc-town-hall) and others on it in the student newspaper lead me to believe that it was a more respectful meeting than the NYPost would like its readers to believe.
Jose Robledo, GS, a University senator, and ROTC cadet said that while the town hall was “a lot more civilized” than ROTC discussions in years past, he was disappointed by the arguments that were made.
As for that last part, I do think that those interested in defending the military have to know their audience. Quite frankly, not many people in academia are going to buy the whole there are a lot of bad people out there that want to kill us argument. This (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/01/24/columbia-and-rotc-lost-generation), this (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/13/rotc-debate-army-deserves-fair-treatment), and this (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/15/bring-back-rotc) all strike me as examples of arguments that are likely to resonate more with the target audience.
Utah Bob
02-20-2011, 19:23
Columbia, bastion of liberal academia. Not surprising at all.
News flash: Not everybody supports the military.
We sometimes get a warm and fuzzy feeling these days (especially us Vietnam types) and think that the public is behind the military 100%.
It's much better than it was but there will always be opposition to the military and soldiers. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. The behavior of those post-adolescents, while inexcusable, is predictable.
What would happen if a black person was bood off the stage. There would be outrage. Sorry, but I don't see a difference in their hatred. People just like to hate.
The students in the report were disrespectful to Mr. Maschek, to say the least. Some here, me included, commented on that.
IMO, student passion and youthful exuberance should not grant them a pass - no matter how difficult the Columbia student heckler's childhood.
Does anyone honestly believe that a transgender student speaker on Columbia University's campus would be heckled in the way that Mr. Maschek, a wounded combat veteran, and fellow student was heckled? Is it reasonable to see a real problem with that complexity?
These Columbia student hecklers may go on to become captains of industry or community organizers or just another educated degenerate. But, I wager that SSG Maschek could teach these snot nosed, disrespectful kids a thing or two about respect, honor and courage - among many other things. Maybe the students at Columbia should have listened instead of heckling.
The Reaper
02-20-2011, 19:53
The argument is two fold. First, the American armed services disproportionately fill their ranks with citizens who are not white. Second, the American armed services fight immoral wars against nations populated by non whites. (Source is here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/08/opinions-mixed-usenates-first-rotc-town-hall).) FWIW, these two arguments arc back at least to the 1960s. While the former has been discredited by scholars including Ronald Spector, the latter has not quite been hashed out by eggheads in a way that would please Hegel.
I agree, if you look at the numbers of minority soldiers in the military, especially in combat arms, they are underrepresented.
As far as the second point goes, the military is subordinated to civilian leadership. We do not decide when and where to go to war. Congress (and to some degree, the POTUS) does. All we can do is to prepare plans and the forces and to try and be ready when we sre sent. If the students think we are engaged in an immoral war, they should let their elected representatives know how they feel and work to influence them. Treating a combat wounded veteran disrespectfully fails to accomplish their purpose, reflects poorly on them, and in fact, may have the opposite of their intended effect and force people to publicly support the soldier and the military.
Frankly, I don't see that having a few uniformed service members on a campus and a couple of dozen cadets participating in the program makes the school any more or less culpable in the war on terrorism. Not having them does reflect the attitude that service to the nation is somehow beneath Columbia students, and apparently, they are okay with that position.
Of course, they probably make fun of the handicapped as well.
TR
What would happen if a black person was booed off the stage. There would be outrage.There might also be determined, dignified perseverance in the face of adversity.
The argument is two fold. First, the American armed services disproportionately fill their ranks with citizens who are not white. Second, the American armed services fight immoral wars against nations populated by non whites. (Source is here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/08/opinions-mixed-usenates-first-rotc-town-hall).) FWIW, these two arguments arc back at least to the 1960s. While the former has been discredited by scholars including Ronald Spector, the latter has not quite been hashed out by eggheads in a way that would please Hegel.
Is it unreasonable to expect young people to respond passionately to a topic in which they're emotionally invested?
.
Dude, that article was an opinion piece. Sammy Roth (Who?) writing for the Columbia Spectator, is hardly a non biased source. Not saying your original point MIGHT not be true, just that you need to find a more scientific source.
Dude, that article was an opinion piece. Sammy Roth (Who?) writing for the Columbia Spectator, is hardly a non biased source. Not saying your original point MIGHT not be true, just that you need to find a more scientific source.QP Sinjefe--
While the title of the piece is "Opinions mixed at USenate's first ROTC town hall," it is a news story, not an op-ed piece.
I picked the article to show that during a town hall meeting, some students had trotted out the dead horse argument that ...Columbia should not engage with the military because it has taken part in immoral wars, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and disproportionately recruits disadvantaged individuals.
As for Sam Roth, he's the editor in chief of the Spectator, about which more can be read here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/about). In terms of the paper's bias (or lack thereof), the egghead in me is inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt given its proximity to the Columbia School of Journalism. I'd hazard the guess that everyone who works for the Spectator knows they're playing 'for keeps' with every issue they publish. YMMV.
Surgicalcric
02-20-2011, 20:44
...First, the American armed services disproportionately fill their ranks with citizens who are not white...
If they think there is a disparity in the military they should look into the numbers for combat arms, especially Infantry and SOF. ;)
Dean’s ROTC speech upsets queer groups
Columbia College Dean Moody-Adams says she was not advocating for ROTC's return but trying to spark continued debate with questions.
By Sammy Roth
Published February 18, 2011
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/18/dean-s-rotc-speech-upsets-queer-groups
Dozer523
02-20-2011, 22:32
When I see people like that in public around here. I just think, if they burst into flames right now. I wouldn't even kick sand on them. You are way to kind. If I found em dying of thirst I wouldn't piss in their mouth. sorry, I'm way behind in my reading, today.
In the olden days ROTC was a full tuition, books and fees Columbia probably did Uncle sugar a favor byt not having the program. Now I believe ROTC doles out in $5K increments -- won't go too far
Sigaba said:
MOO, this sentiment is a bit extreme. Americans--both citizens and citizen soldiers--have sacrificed a lot for our freedoms. How does exercising freedom of speech--regardless of our own personal opinions of that speech--dishonor America? (And if we really want elite universities to be populated by students who don't get hot and bothered about something, we may as well pull the plug on the entire American educational system right now.)
BS. They may be exercising their first amendment rights, but it was in extremely bad taste. Not only was it in bad taste, they trampled on this student's rights as well. How can he enjoy his first amendment rights if others are preventing what he is saying from being heard?
Additionally, tying this to freedom of speech is in my opinion is intellectually dishonest. It's a red herring. This is not a case of freedom of speech, it's a case of poor manners and boorish behavior. To exhibit manners such as this, is dishonoring to their parents. To boo and hiss while a veteran is speaking, especially one who has greatly sacrificed for his country is disgraceful. In doing so, they have dishonored their country. To do so in a university sanctioned function is a dishonor the same university.
While the former has been discredited by scholars including Ronald Spector, the latter has not quite been hashed out by eggheads in a way that would please Hegel.
If I lived in an ivory tower, Ronald Spector's work would be enlightening, I'm sure. However, I've had a ringside seat to reality. Anyone who is paying attention knows that this issue of minority combat soldiers shouldering the burden of the GWOT is BS. Also, if these prospective intellects gave a shit about the truth they would know it. Also, what the eggheads hash out, may be of interest to some. I do not need them to connect the dots for me.
Is it unreasonable to expect young people to respond passionately to a topic in which they're emotionally invested?
I think you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the threshold point. No one is questioning their right to be passionate. But there's a difference between being passionate about a subject and handling it in a mature manner. IMO it's not unreasonable to expect young adults to act in a respectful manner when others are speaking. You seem to give these brats a wide latitude related to their manners. May I remind you, there are men and women who are the same age and younger, facing life and death as we write and read and many of their actions may be examined by lawyers and tribunals if their split second decisions results in an unfavorable or unpopular result. Why should these students get a free pass? In my opinion, that's what the problem is with these pretentious douchebags. They need to carry a ruck, dig a fox hole, crawl through a gig pit or better yet, they can spend some time at Walter Reed emptying bed pans and listening to the cries of the wounded and dying. They need some enforced humility.
Lastly, what good is free speech if we can choose who to shout down when it's their turn at the podium? What good is an Ivy League education if when you leave, you are devoid of any principles of common decency and respect for the rights of others?
First, if we who want ROTC battalions on as many campuses as possible are going to get this upset over jeering, how are we going to make it through the long haul as (hopefully) more battalions come on line and aspiring officers and their instructors encounter lingering dissent?
Do you really think we are going to make it in the long haul if we have students such as these becoming the norm among graduates? Some behavior cannot be tolerated by a free people. Look at our current plight. Our lack of moral fiber in the aggregate. You're a historian. Do you really think societies can survive if this kind of behavior becomes the norm and is condoned and not met with extreme criticism? All it guarantees in the end that the only ones who will be heard are the loudest and most boorish.
DisplacedTrojan
02-21-2011, 01:01
Link to audio of the speech: http://www DOT columbia DOT edu/cu/senate/militaryengagement/20110215clip.mp3
Audio was released by the hosting body of the forum and is clearly edited for length, that is to say it is three minutes long and only covers Anthony Maschek's speech. Other edits are unknown, but the possibility exists. There is laughter at some of his comments, a 'wrap it up' comment from the bench, and instructions to the audience after the fact that could be perceived as 'CYA guidance.'
I will say this... the particular event has caused me to look into the published reasons ROTC programs were kicked off campuses, another topic about which I know little. I see a trend that there were concerns over the academic status of Military Instructors assigned to ROTC programs, perceived intellectual conflicts around questioning assumptions, and concerns related to academic credit of courses. I was surprised to see limited references to DOD discriminatory policies. For those of you who know more about this... was it just the popular COA that found an initial 'justification,' periodically found another 'justification' and is now searching for the next?
What I find telling is the simple fact that these hearings are felt necessary by the Ivy Leagues. Columbia's original reasons for kicking out NROTC are no longer valid. So NROTC can now get back to business, right? Oh... no? Oh... they said we should talk about it...
They may be exercising their first amendment rights, but it was in extremely bad taste. Not only was it in bad taste, they trampled on this student's rights as well. How can he enjoy his first amendment rights if others are preventing what he is saying from being heard?The fact that his views were reported in a newspaper with the fifth largest circulation among American broadsheets calls into question the assertion that SSG Maschek was deprived of freedom of speech.Additionally, tying this to freedom of speech is in my opinion is intellectually dishonest.Would you confirm or clarify your point. Are you saying that I am being intellectually dishonest? If so, what is your proof?It's a red herring. This is not a case of freedom of speech, it's a case of poor manners and boorish behavior. To exhibit manners such as this, is dishonoring to their parents. To boo and hiss while a veteran is speaking, especially one who has greatly sacrificed for his country is disgraceful. In doing so, they have dishonored their country. To do so in a university sanctioned function is a dishonor the same university.Please show where in the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. code manners trump inalienable rights. If I lived in an ivory tower, Ronald Spector's work would be enlightening, I'm sure. However, I've had a ringside seat to reality. Anyone who is paying attention knows that this issue of minority combat soldiers shouldering the burden of the GWOT is BS. Also, if these prospective intellects gave a shit about the truth they would know it. Also, what the eggheads hash out, may be of interest to some. I do not need them to connect the dots for me.How was your 'ring side seat to reality' different than the vantage point Spector had as a Marine officer and field historian in Vietnam? To what extent did your experiences differ from his and make his interpretations of the American military experience so inconsequential that you can dismiss them out of hand?*I think you are intentionally or unintentionally missing the threshold point.While I understand that people may disagree on a controversial topic, this is the second time in this post that you have questioned my intellectual integrity. I do believe that this approach is ill considered and that your accusations are unsustainable.
By the bye, there is a tension between your claim that No one is questioning their right to be passionate.And the following two points.Why should these students get a free pass? In my opinion, that's what the problem is with these pretentious douchebags. They need to carry a ruck, dig a fox hole, crawl through a gig pit or better yet, they can spend some time at Walter Reed emptying bed pans and listening to the cries of the wounded and dying. They need some enforced humility. And second Some behavior cannot be tolerated by a free people.You seem to be doing exactly what you say no one is doing by suggesting that only those citizens who have experienced a set of criteria defined by others should enjoy rights that are naturally theirs.Do you really think we are going to make it in the long haul if we have students such as these becoming the norm among graduates? Some behavior cannot be tolerated by a free people. Look at our current plight. Our lack of moral fiber in the aggregate. You're a historian. Do you really think societies can survive if this kind of behavior becomes the norm and is condoned and not met with extreme criticism? If America can survive the long nineteenth century, it can certainly make it through the hard times it currently faces. And what does it say of one's "moral fiber" if one so readily turns to "enforced humility" and "extreme criticism" to get one's point across?
__________________________________________________ _____
* Ronald Spector, “‘What Did You Do in the War, Professor?’ Reflections on Teaching About Vietnam,” American Heritage 38:1 (December 1986): 98-102.
TOMAHAWK9521
02-21-2011, 04:44
When I see people like that in public around here. I just think, if they burst into flames right now. I wouldn't even kick sand on them. I believe the new name for them is Hipsters. Another word for Pussy.
We call them Trustafarians out west.
The fact that his views were reported in a newspaper with the fifth largest circulation among American broadsheets calls into question the assertion that SSG Maschek was deprived of freedom of speech.Would you confirm or clarify your point. Are you saying that I am being intellectually dishonest? If so, what is your proof?Please show where in the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. code manners trump inalienable rights. How was your 'ring side seat to reality' different than the vantage point Spector had as a Marine officer and field historian in Vietnam? To what extent did your experiences differ from his and make his interpretations of the American military experience so inconsequential that you can dismiss them out of hand?*While I understand that people may disagree on a controversial topic, this is the second time in this post that you have questioned my intellectual integrity. I do believe that this approach is ill considered and that your accusations are unsustainable.
By the bye, there is a tension between your claim that And the following two points. And second You seem to be doing exactly what you say no one is doing by suggesting that only those citizens who have experienced a set of criteria defined by others should enjoy rights that are naturally theirs.If America can survive the long nineteenth century, it can certainly make it through the hard times it currently faces. And what does it say of one's "moral fiber" if one so readily turns to "enforced humility" and "extreme criticism" to get one's point across?
__________________________________________________ _____
* Ronald Spector, “‘What Did You Do in the War, Professor?’ Reflections on Teaching About Vietnam,” American Heritage 38:1 (December 1986): 98-102.
You're over analyzing this one. They CAN say whatever they want. They SHOULD be more mature and respectful. They ARE being boorish, freedom of speech or not.
Merely as a point of reference and not to continue the debate or to excuse anyone's behavior at that forum - but does anyone remember what such open forums were like on college campuses during the late 60s through the mid-70s?
I do...and let me say that this one - in comparison - was pretty much a non-event and wouldn't even have been a 'mention' in the student gossip mills back then, let alone a local newspaper.
But as Einstein would remark, "It's all relative." ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Merely as a point of reference and not to continue the debate or to excuse anyone's behavior at that forum - but does anyone remember what such open forums were like on college campuses during the late 60s through the mid-70s?
I do...and let me say that this one - in comparison - was pretty much a non-event and wouldn't even have been a 'mention' in the student gossip mills back then, let alone a local newspaper.
But as Einstein would remark, "It's all relative." ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Wasn't right then, either.
You're over analyzing this one.Then it is a good thing that I submitted the fourth version of the post rather than the second or the third.
Dozer523
02-21-2011, 13:01
Then it is a good thing that I submitted the fourth version of the post rather than the second or the third. Proof that there is a God.;)
greenberetTFS
02-21-2011, 13:20
Wasn't right then, either.
You know they really don't have to like us,but you would think these bastards would at least respect what we're doing for them...........:mad::mad::mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
You know they really don't have to like us,but you would think these bastards would at least respect what we're doing for them...........:mad
Big Teddy :munchin
Big Teddy,
I can assure you, only because of the few support websites I have belonged to over the years, like Soldiers Angels, that WE far outnumber those few who would choose to act in such a disgusting way!
Furthermore, if confronted with the enemy in person, those little pissants who choose to scoff at Real Men, would be grabbing their ankles on the Taliban lawn begging for their mommies to save them, IMHO.:munchin
In other words, they are not worth the oxagen they breathe, and hope all of you know that REAL AMERICANS have your backs!
Holly
Merely as a point of reference and not to continue the debate or to excuse anyone's behavior at that forum - but does anyone remember what such open forums were like on college campuses during the late 60s through the mid-70s?
I do...and let me say that this one - in comparison - was pretty much a non-event and wouldn't even have been a 'mention' in the student gossip mills back then, let alone a local newspaper.
But as Einstein would remark, "It's all relative." ;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Richard Sir,
Have always wanted to ask this, so here goes...,"WHAT was that like for you and your fellow SF men at the time?" Am honestly curious Sir.:confused:
Holly
olhamada
02-21-2011, 18:24
Just saw this thread. Makes me sick. How dare they? :mad:
My first response is to take these "kids" out back and teach them a thing or two. My second is to stick them in a C-17, strap parachutes on their backs, and throw them out over Kirkuk.
Yet another reason to mandate 2 years of government service after high school.
"WHAT was that like for you and your fellow SF men at the time?"
Entertaining. ;)
Richard
Good luck with your studies Mr. Maschek - thank you for your service!!!
Well all that put on the uniforme we stand to protect these dumbasses and other. We will forever have these types in our society and Country.
I would have added, and if you don't like it. Please once you get your education, get the F&@K out the USA and please go somehwere else. But nothing would have changed.
I find it funny how this never made to news. Nope, but if it was the other way around. Tables turned, we would have seen it on the evening news and every hour for the next 24 hours.
John_Chrichton
02-21-2011, 23:54
FWIW, the Columbia Spectator's digital morgue of articles on ROTC dating back to 2007 is available here (http://www.columbiaspectator.com/terms/tags/rotc).
FWIW, part two, a passage in the article linked in the OP states:
That statement of support is available here (http://www.advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/2010Spectator.pdf).
Professor Jackson is a former president of both the Organization of American Historians and the Society of American Historians--the two major professional organizations for American historians--as well as a winner of the prestigious Bancroft Prize for Crabgrass Frontier in 1986 <<LINK (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eguides/amerihist/bancroft.html)>>.
The fact that Professor Jackson supports ROTC at Columbia suggests that attitudes towards the American armed services in the Ivory Tower are changing, notwithstanding the inexcusable asshattery of a handful of undergraduates.
These "statements" and "announcements" of support are worth absolutely nothing. These kind of attitudes aren't just exhibited by a few handfuls of undergraduates and "professors" at ivy league schools. You will find similar sentiment, expressed in varying degrees of intensity, at every single college/university you go to. Personally, I believe this is due to the lack of any real intellectual/academic freedom in those institutions. In order to survive and attain tenure, the academic has to support the party line of their employers. Hence, the only people, save for a few exceptions, that survive in academia are those that support such attitudes and views. To these people, SSG Maschek represents everything that they despise--a man who sacrificed for the country that they hate for a living.
As a citizen, I can never accept any of the explanations/excuses offered as to why academia is the way it is. Why it is supposedly understandable, excusable, even somehow expected, for adult students and their teachers to behave in such a way or hold attitudes complicit in such behavior. As a citizen, I view the anti-military sentiment in academia not as a legitimate difference in opinion, or as an outcome of any real, legitimate intellectual discussion, but as treason pure as simple. :mad:
Just my $0.000002.
These "statements" and "announcements" of support are worth absolutely nothing. These kind of attitudes aren't just exhibited by a few handfuls of undergraduates and "professors" at ivy league schools. You will find similar sentiment, expressed in varying degrees of intensity, at every single college/university you go to. Personally, I believe this is due to the lack of any real intellectual/academic freedom in those institutions. In order to survive and attain tenure, the academic has to support the party line of their employers. Hence, the only people, save for a few exceptions, that survive in academia are those that support such attitudes and views. To these people, SSG Maschek represents everything that they despise--a man who sacrificed for the country that they hate for a living.
Actually, I found the exact opposite at the colleges I attended - SacState, UMd-Euro, FaySU, Methodist, ColsCol, Indiana, and TxWU. There was a broad range of both interests and opinions regarding the military - from dovoted pacifists to anit-war activists to overt hawks. I actually found more of a pervasive anti-military/anti-war culture when I attended the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität Bonn and the BWs JugendOffizierAusbildung in Koblenz.
However, I cannot speak for the likes of Columbia as I can only go by the opinions of those who either attended or worked there and the MSMs reporting and OpEds.
Richard
1stindoor
02-22-2011, 09:34
... I see a trend that there were concerns over the academic status of Military Instructors assigned to ROTC programs, perceived intellectual conflicts around questioning assumptions, and concerns related to academic credit of courses.
When I was in college ROTC...this was '82-'85, my PMS (Professor of Military Science) was a COL, AH-64 pilot in VN, and regularly awarded the "toughest professor on campus" award. His finals were generally three or four questions, closed book, essay type...it took you about 3 hours to complete and everything was graded...content, spelling, grammar, punctuation, references, everything. I lost count at how many people I heard file complaints about his grading criteria. During the three years I was enrolled (I was in the short course...by that I mean I found a short cut...by that I mean I drank myself out of a commission) I never heard of one grade being adjusted.
Streck-Fu
02-22-2011, 10:56
As an aside, this sign from a Columbia student is pretty ironic considering how Columbia University treats local communities....LINK (http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/15/detailing-columbia-universitys)
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2011/02/20/news/photos_stories/20.1n008.norespect2--300x300.jpg
Entire post.You might profit from finding a copy of Peter Lowenberg's Decoding the Past and reading the first few chapters, especially if you're a grad student studying history.
As for as your generalizations about the Ivory Tower, I think you're painting with too broad a brush.
It may well be that your own biases are inhibiting your ability to see things as they are (as opposed to how you think they should be). Your perspective may also be preventing you from developing the kinds of relationships with professors so that they feel comfortable enough with you to let you see behind the curtain, to step through the looking glass, to dance with the skeletons in the closet, and maybe, to help bury a few bodies.
HTH.
I received this from someone who can shed a little more light on the topic of this thread, and post it with his permission and requested editing of specified personal information.
Richard :munchin
Sir,
You mentioned that you preferred opinions from people at Columbia, so here goes: I just graduated with my BA from Columbia in 2010, and ship to OSUT {edit}. I've been involved in Columbia's efforts to bring ROTC back to campus and know and have spoken to a number of individuals who attended the town hall. If you were interested and if you haven't come across them already, here are some other sources from which to draw information about the ROTC debate at Columbia {edit}.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/militaryengagement/
This is the task force responsible for investigating the issue and convening the town halls. Pay specific attention to the emails (listed under Documents) which saliently enumerate the arguments both for and against ROTC on campus.
http://advocatesforrotc.org/columbia/2011faculty.pdf
Faculty petition with 30+ prominent tenured faculty signatories urging the return of ROTC to Columbia.
This sort of behavior is certainly the fringe and the overwhelming majority of Columbia students see them for what they are--despicable and reflecting poorly on the university. If I were to guess (and despite conceptions of Columbia in popular media), about 70% of Columbia campus is pro-ROTC and 30% against. The vocal opposition, which tend to be in graduate departments such as anthropology and certain student groups such as Students for a Democratic Society or Students for Justice in Palestine, are small but usually very well organized. In addition, vets actually enjoy a sizable presence on campus, primarily due to the School of General Studies, an undergraduate college of Columbia designed for "non-traditional" students which recruits heavily from the military (the GS Dean, Peter J. Awn, likes to say that hes specifically recruits "Uzis and Tutus"--military vets and former ballet dancers--because of their drive and focus), as well as Columbia's various grad programs.
I hope this helps,
{Edit}
I am glad to see that from his perspective it's 70 - 30 pro-ROTC at the university. It's always good to get the perspective of someone that is actually involved and has first-hand knowledge. I also give him credence based on the fact that he is obviously pro-military and has actually joined.
1stindoor
02-22-2011, 13:22
....
You know if you keep doing this I'm just going to quit jumping to conclusions.
You know if you keep doing this I'm just going to quit jumping to conclusions.
Won't that mess up the SWCS PT program? :D
Richard :munchin
1stindoor
02-22-2011, 13:59
Won't that mess up the SWCS PT program? :D
Richard :munchin
Nice!
Between those, kneejerk reactions, and reinventing the wheel we stay pretty busy.
John_Chrichton
02-22-2011, 17:58
You might profit from finding a copy of Peter Lowenberg's Decoding the Past and reading the first few chapters, especially if you're a grad student studying history.
As for as your generalizations about the Ivory Tower, I think you're painting with too broad a brush.
It may well be that your own biases are inhibiting your ability to see things as they are (as opposed to how you think they should be). Your perspective may also be preventing you from developing the kinds of relationships with professors so that they feel comfortable enough with you to let you see behind the curtain, to step through the looking glass, to dance with the skeletons in the closet, and maybe, to help bury a few bodies.
HTH.
Sir, I don't doubt that I have my biases. However, these are biases formed after spending time in various academic settings. In my post, I stated that there are exceptions to the unpatriotic, anti-American, anti-intellectual attitude that prevails in academia. QP Richard stated his experiences. However, from what I have seen, these attitudes are unfortunately the rule, not the exception. After all, what other field harbors the likes of Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill and other leftist propagandists? In what other setting would you witness the heckling of a war hero? I fail to see any excuse for the actions and attitudes of these students and professors. To me, academia is always going to be an overflown septic tank that is overdue to be drained. :boohoo
To me, academia is always going to be an overflown septic tank that is overdue to be drained. :boohoo
Very Well said, sir!!!!!!!
If any written response to this topic was revealed as genuine, heart-felt-truth...THIS IS IT, IMVHO!:o:munchin
Holly....Bravo sir!
greenberetTFS
02-22-2011, 18:27
Very Well said, sir!!!!!!!
If any written response to this topic was revealed as genuine, heart-felt-truth...THIS IS IT, IMVHO!:o:munchin
Holly....Bravo sir!
I concur........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
RE Posts #66, 67, and 68 - I do not agree.
Richard :munchin
However, these are biases formed after spending time in various academic settings. How much time? In what settings?
ZonieDiver
02-23-2011, 06:59
Are catcalls and rude, illogical ejaculations ("racist") acceptable reactions? NO
Have such things been a part of our public discourse since 'day one'? Probably so
Should anyone condone such behavior? NO
Were such comments made, apparently, by only 2-4 students? YES
Did many more students applaud than jeer? YES
Did the forum's moderator do a good job of chastising the transgressors? YES
Did SSG Maschek respond well to the rude interruption? YES
Is this incident enough to condemn Columbia and all of academia? I don't think so.
Would SSG Maschek do so? I think not. Maybe he'll turn up and say so.
Audio available here:
http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/task-force-releases-audio-of
Thanks for the link, ZD.
I would suggest everyone listen to the actual event which was reported in the NY Post and has everyone so riled up. The link is here and I find it actually bears little resemblence to the situation as the Post's article would lead one to believe.
http://spectrum.columbiaspectator.com/spectrum/task-force-releases-audio-of
Personally, I would be happy if the many adults who can be found on YouTube disrupting the various Town Hall debates over national health care behaved even half as well as the students at Columbia did during this forum.
You will also hear how 'in control' the moderators actually were during this meeting and how well Maschek carried himself.
Additionally, the Post reported:
"...Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008."
If you listen to the audio of Maschek's remarks to the forum, you will also hear from him that those 'facts' are incorrect.
IMO the Columbia students behaved themselves pretty well and if I was a student at Columbia, I would be very upset at the way that behavior was reported in the Post.
And so it goes...
Richard
Thanks for the link. Interesting comments included on that page. The battle rages.
John_Chrichton
02-24-2011, 10:00
Thank you for posting the audio of the incident. While it appears that taken on its face, the incident alone does not merit the condemnation of this university or all of academia, it is the history of such incidents and sentiment that does.
How much time? In what settings?
Several years as a student and researcher. Throughout that time I also worked with a group that defended students against violations of their intellectual/individual freedoms on campus.
For those who may hold a somewhat idealized view of academia, events like this may seem to be the product of a fringe, vocal, well-organized minority and may be ignored. However, IMHO the toleration for and support of this minority in higher education points to the true nature of the field.
This morning SSgt. Maschek was interviewed on Fox News. I have to say that I was impressed with his perception of the events and how he handled it. He iterated the fact that the group that spoke out against him was relatively small and that the majority of those that attended the debate was supportive of his stance. You could tell by his demeanor during the interview and by statements that he made that he is a humble individual and was there for a healthy debate over the issue. He stated multiple times that one of the things he fought to defend was their rights to protest and speak their opinions. One of the things that I found through his interview and listening to the actual recordings was that as often is done, the press went overboard with their presenting of the facts. It was nice to have independent audio of the situation to hear what actually happened. Personally, I would have preferred they protest in a quieter manner and give him more respect than they did while realizing that he supports their rights to do so.
Thank you for posting the audio of the incident. While it appears that taken on its face, the incident alone does not merit the condemnation of this university or all of academia, it is the history of such incidents and sentiment that does.
Several years as a student and researcher. Throughout that time I also worked with a group that defended students against violations of their intellectual/individual freedoms on campus.
For those who may hold a somewhat idealized view of academia, events like this may seem to be the product of a fringe, vocal, well-organized minority and may be ignored. However, IMHO the toleration for and support of this minority in higher education points to the true nature of the field.What "field?" Where? When?
The issue I'm having with your posts is that you're offering very broad generalizations while offering little evidence to support your claims other than your vague references to your own experiences.
John_Chrichton
02-24-2011, 23:07
What "field?" Where? When?
The issue I'm having with your posts is that you're offering very broad generalizations while offering little evidence to support your claims other than your vague references to your own experiences.
I don't want to discuss my background beyond what I've already written. My opinions are based on my experiences in academia and also on the experiences of those with whom I worked on intellectual freedom issues in colleges/universities.
The opinions I expressed in this thread are just that: opinions. They are supported by some and rebuked by others.
You don't have to be in academia to understand why it has the reputation that it does. Namely, because it actively supports and promotes terrorists like Bill Ayers and anti-American propagandists like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Ward Churchill. Academia has long served as the intellectual nerve-center of the left in this country:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html
It is high time that the field entrusted with educating young Americans is cleaned up. If it is not, tenured demagogues will continue in their attempts to brain-wash generations of Americans into hating their own country. As can be heard from the audio of SSG Maschek's speech, they've already succeeded with some at Columbia U.
alright4u
02-25-2011, 04:23
The students remind me of a saying we are familiar with in SF.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)
I don't want to discuss my background beyond what I've already written. My opinions are based on my experiences in academia and also on the experiences of those with whom I worked on intellectual freedom issues in colleges/universities.
The opinions I expressed in this thread are just that: opinions. They are supported by some and rebuked by others.
You don't have to be in academia to understand why it has the reputation that it does. Namely, because it actively supports and promotes terrorists like Bill Ayers and anti-American propagandists like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Ward Churchill. Academia has long served as the intellectual nerve-center of the left in this country:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html
It is high time that the field entrusted with educating young Americans is cleaned up. If it is not, tenured demagogues will continue in their attempts to brain-wash generations of Americans into hating their own country. As can be heard from the audio of SSG Maschek's speech, they've already succeeded with some at Columbia U.MOO, you undermine the effectiveness of your advocacy by making overly broad generalizations and declining to detail the factual basis of your opinion.
John_Chrichton
02-25-2011, 20:53
MOO, you undermine the effectiveness of your advocacy by making overly broad generalizations and declining to detail the factual basis of your opinion.
You don't need to be in academia, or have any "higher" education whatsoever to know what academia is all about. Just look at the stats (such in the links provided) and the kind of incidents that happen on college campuses across the country (such as this one with SSG Maschek). These are the bases for my "generalizations".
Today, academia harbors some of the worst bottom-feeders of American society who give birth to vitriolic propaganda against our country and its allies. It is not a product of honest intellectual discussion and debate and there is no excuse for it.
Today, academia harbors some of the worst bottom-feeders of American society who give birth to vitriolic propaganda against our country and its allies.
Unfortunately, this is true for many (but not all) academics and their progeny. Yeah, Ward Churchill is a special prize isn't he.
But, hey, think of the upside...the same could be said for some members of Congress, journalists, network news anchors, Hollywood celebrities, doctors, lawyers, accountants, pseudo-intellectuals, etc., etc., etc., ;)
It truly takes all kinds - being a grad student in Bean-town - you already know that.
Sincere best wishes with your studies and your training. God speed.
MOO, you undermine the effectiveness of your advocacy by making overly broad generalizations and declining to detail the factual basis of your opinion.
Sig,
Again, am at a loss for words when it comes to analizing your written word...but in response to this post, may I remind you that the Title of This Thread is, "Wounded Vet Heckled at Columbia." HECKLED, TAUNTED, BOOED!
A Wounded Veteran!!! Are either of us of that status? No? Then we should both learn a little from those who have served, or are attempting to serve, IMHO.
Mr. Chrichton brings an excellent viewpoint in this regard. One that I believe should be viewed with the utmost respect, since he is after all, serving!:munchin
Holly
[The] anti-intellectual attitude that prevails in academia....
You don't need to be in academia, or have any "higher" education whatsoever to know what academia is all about. IMO, a little intellectual consistency goes a long way. YMMV.Mr. Chrichton brings an excellent viewpoint in this regard. One that I believe should be viewed with the utmost respect, since he is after all, serving!Echoes--
Your belief differs from the information provided by Mr. Chrichton.
From what perspective does Mr. Chricton offer his point of view?As a citizen, I can never accept any of the explanations/excuses offered as to why academia is the way it is.
According to his intro and bio, what is his current status in the armed services?I am an 18X from Boston, MA shipping on 20110524.
What about the other members of this BB who have also served this country who disagree with Mr. Chrichton position (posts #57 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=377753&postcount=57) and #71 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=377970&postcount=71)) Do the POVs of QPs merit your consideration? Or should they be dismissed out of hand because you disagree?
Well than I guess more right/conservative thinking individuals need to start teaching more on college campuses. Higher education has been a place for thirsty minds for a long time now, and many of those minds are easily molded. I myself was taken in by the liberal arts (Jesuit) university I attended, so much so that I turned for a while into a liberal. I have since dialed that back towards the middle, but the point is you can't force the universities to teach a fair and balanced agenda. You can expect it, and fight for it, but to me that is a losing battle.
Personally I really don't think the mainstream faculty and students really need to be compared to Chomsky and Ward Churchill. I mean do we really need unnecessary hyperbole to stir up this debate?
We've just learned that the Post misrepresented what actually happened on the campus of Columbia, and it is this very kind unnecessary use of hyperbole to get a point across that clouds the debate.
I think we can all agree there is a portion of higher education that is way out there on the radical left. But I don't think they're so substantial that they've taken over American politics. Not even close.
Al-o-whatever,
Well then am assuming the "SF Candidate" title was unseen when Quoting, and am personally appaled at the LACK of respect shown towards real Men, when quoting their posts.....:munchin
WTH?:boohoo:rolleyes:
Holly
IMO, a little intellectual consistency goes a long way. YMMV.Echoes--
Your belief differs from the information provided by Mr. Chrichton.
From what perspective does Mr. Chricton offer his point of view?
According to his intro and bio, what is his current status in the armed services?
What about the other members of this BB who have also served this country who disagree with Mr. Chrichton position (posts #57 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=377753&postcount=57) and #71 (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=377970&postcount=71)) Do the POVs of QPs merit your consideration? Or should they be dismissed out of hand because you disagree?
SIG,
The QP's on this site KNOW that I will support and defend THEM, until the day I die! They KNOW that my suport is not contigent on popular trends/cultures/beliefs, but rather upon an old fashioned sense of pride and honor, that was instilled a very lond time ago.
The SF Men that I support here are way out of our league sir, and weather or not you believe that, is entirely up to you. I know it as fact.
Holly
I am confused. Did I show disrespect to anyone in this thread? I am a little lost here, thinking I am debating a topic and now I learn it is disallowed because some posters are not to be debated with at all? John seems like a well put together individual with a healthy spirit for debate on this issue. Did I somehow provide a post that challenged his honor or something?Please check your PMs.
ZonieDiver
02-27-2011, 11:19
Al-o-whatever
Hey! That gets my 'Irish' up! Next thing you know, you'll be disparaging the name Padraic instead of Aloysius!. :D
Hey! That gets my 'Irish' up! Next thing you know, you'll be disparaging the name Padraic instead of Aloysius!. :D
And don't call me Shirley. :p
Richard :munchin
Dozer523
02-27-2011, 12:22
Al-o-whatever,Holly
Hey! That gets my 'Irish' up! Next thing you know, you'll be disparaging the name Padraic instead of Aloysius!. :D Hey!! NO PINK! He was a Jesuit! The Special Forces of Catholicism! He was from Spain, too.
Gonzaga sewed up the WCC (11th time in a row . . . .yawn) and is going to the show. Hopefully past sweet 16. we now return you to our regularly scheduled, whatever.
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 14:09
Unfortunately, this is true for many (but not all) academics and their progeny. Yeah, Ward Churchill is a special prize isn't he.
But, hey, think of the upside...the same could be said for some members of Congress, journalists, network news anchors, Hollywood celebrities, doctors, lawyers, accountants, pseudo-intellectuals, etc., etc., etc., ;)
Sincere best wishes with your studies and your training. God speed.
Agreed, sir, and thank you!
Well than I guess more right/conservative thinking individuals need to start teaching more on college campuses.
Conservative professors have tried and unfortunately, have largely failed due to the departments and the universities in general being controlled largely by left-wingers who are threatened by intellectual diversity.
Personally I really don't think the mainstream faculty and students really need to be compared to Chomsky and Ward Churchill. I mean do we really need unnecessary hyperbole to stir up this debate?
There was nothing hyperbolic about my statement. Noam Chomsky has an enormous following in academia. His anti-American tracts are considered textbooks, are not debated, and are required reading on all major college/university campuses. Ward Churchill was not investigated for obvious fabrication and plagiarism because of his political rhetoric, which happened to fall in line with his bosses in academia, until he became a political liability for the university.
I myself was taken in by the liberal arts (Jesuit) university I attended, so much so that I turned for a while into a liberal. I have since dialed that back towards the middle, but the point is you can't force the universities to teach a fair and balanced agenda. You can expect it, and fight for it, but to me that is a losing battle.
I think we can all agree there is a portion of higher education that is way out there on the radical left. But I don't think they're so substantial that they've taken over American politics. Not even close.
I find your statements to be very interesting. First, you admit that you were succesfuly indoctrinated by your university. Second, you state that achieving fairness in higher education curricula is impossible. And then you go on to imply you're fine with higher ed having a political agenda as long as it isn't radically left.
Isn't there something inherently wrong with the fact that the system charged with educating young people is so politicized? How can you say that academia's political agenda isn't radically leftist, if it's intellectual leaders are themselves radical leftists? How can you deny that academia doesn't have a major impact on this country's politics if pretty much all of our political leaders spend years in higher ed?
IMO, a little intellectual consistency goes a long way. YMMV.
Absolutely. However, there is nothing intellectually incosistent with my statement, that one doesn't need to spend years at a university to examine the facts about the university system and draw conclusions from these facts. The stats speak for themselves.
From what perspective does Mr. Chricton offer his point of view?
I am of course posting my opinions from the perspective of a citizen. And a citizen, I am appalled by the state of higher ed today.
Entire post.MOO, your observations strike me as those of an outsider looking in.
Hopefully, in the short time you have left at what ever institution you're attending, you will take advantage of the opportunities to develop genuine rapport, t0 establish a dialog, do hard work in the library, to do some self-examination, and to make a difference.
I am of course posting my opinions from the perspective of a citizen. And a citizen, I am appalled by the state of higher ed today.
Is that why you chose a screen name based on the likes of Farscape's John Crichton persona?
Richard :munchin
MOO, your observations strike me as those of an outsider looking in.
Hopefully, in the short time you have left at what ever institution you're attending, you will take advantage of the opportunities to develop genuine rapport, t0 establish a dialog, do hard work in the library, to do some self-examination, and to make a difference.
Sig,
MOO, You are making excuses for Academia, as an insider looking out.:munchin
Hopefully, (which is not a word, btw) respect will be given to the brave men and women who give a good goddamn, and fight for our right to debate this issue, and those like it.:rolleyes:
Just a thought, and one I am not afraid to share sir.
Holly
EntireHolly--
If you think I'm making "excuses" for the Ivory Tower, you have not read my posts on the topic.
The question is: What are we going to do about it? Are we going to grouse endlessly about it? Or are we going to figure out ways to compete intellectually?
Holly--
If you think I'm making "excuses" for the Ivory Tower, you have not read my posts on the topic.
The question is: What are we going to about it? Are we going to grouse endlessly about it? Or are we going to figure out ways to compete intellectually?
Grouse endlessly.
ZonieDiver
02-27-2011, 18:40
Holly--
If you think I'm making "excuses" for the Ivory Tower, you have not read my posts on the topic.
The question is: What are we going to about it? Are we going to grouse endlessly about it? Or are we going to figure out ways to compete intellectually?
Concealed Carry on Campus?
Grouse endlessly.
Concealed Carry on Campus?Ever been here?(D) None of the above.
(E) All of the above.But if I pick (E), then I'm also saying (D)!:eek::confused:
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 19:34
MOO, your observations strike me as those of an outsider looking in.
Outsider yes, to that political agenda.
The question is: What are we going to do about it? Are we going to grouse endlessly about it? Or are we going to figure out ways to compete intellectually?
We just need to start somewhere. For example, by cutting federal funding for schools that do not allow ROTC/military recruitment efforts on their campuses.
Also, as a public, we can pay more attention to what's taught in higher ed curricula and what's happening on the campuses of our local colleges/universities. Making an immediate difference is much easier than one'd think. For example, if your kid is in college, ask him/her what they use as textbooks and do research on the materials. Ask what kind of lectures their profs deliver in class and what they're expected to deliver as assignments. If there's a clear agenda favored by the professor, work with your kid to take action by contacting the department, the president, board of trustees and/or the local/national press.
If there's a demonstration being organized by the campus version of Hamas, find our if there are student groups counter-protesting. Get in touch with those students and find out ways in which they can be supported e.g. donations for signs, letters to editor of local paper, joining the counter-protest itself etc.
IMHO the major reason why academia is so radically politicized, is because it operated largely outside of public scrutiny. While some believe that it's pointless to fight tenured radicals on their home turf, it's definitely not. Colleges/universities are first and foremost businesses who are highly protective of their own reputations, which drives their revenue stream. Determined individuals who consistently shed light on activities of their local higher ed institution (be it through op-ed pieces, demonstrations, support for student groups, calls to the university board of trustees etc.) can and have helped to bring about glasnost on campus.
Entire post.Or, one could just go to a professor's office, poke in one's head and say "Hey, got a few minutes to talk about your comments on my essay?"
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 19:57
Or, one could just go to a professor's office, poke in one's head and say "Hey, got a few minutes to talk about your comments on my essay?"
That method certainly works with some, but does not work with others. A student doesn't have much recourse if the disagreement is ideological.
That method certainly works with some, but does not work with others. A student doesn't have much recourse if the disagreement is ideological.Sure he/she does. He (or she) can hit the stacks, look in the mirror, hit the stacks, take criticism to heart, hit the stacks, and work harder.
The Reaper
02-27-2011, 20:06
Or, one could just go to a professor's office, poke in one's head and say "Hey, got a few minutes to talk about your comments on my essay?"
It has been many years, but that technique has not been effective when I tried it.
The left has plenty of haters, too, and once they are tenured, they are nearly impossible to reason with.
TR
Or, one could just go to a professor's office, poke in one's head and say "Hey, got a few minutes to talk about your comments on my essay?"
Believe it or not, most of the time they will kick you out (politely). I find that emailing them or talking to them after lecture you could give them 3 times that you could meet with them. If you just pop in, they're going to think that you don't care about what they do and that the only thing that matters is YOU.
Believe it or not, most of the time they will kick you out (politely). I find that emailing them or talking to them after lecture you could give them 3 times that you could meet with them. If you just pop in, they're going to think that you don't care about what they do and that the only thing that matters is YOU.My experiences played out differently.
Primarily because I was very selective--with one awful miscalculation--with whom I would work.
Second, it was clear that I was profoundly disinterested in the mark I received--I got the grades I deserved--and more focused on learning what was being taught.
Third, I made a point of taking seminars rather than classes centered around lectures.
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 20:58
Sure he/she does. He (or she) can hit the stacks, look in the mirror, hit the stacks, take criticism to heart, hit the stacks, and work harder.
:eek:
This view is highly disturbing and contradicts what you wrote earlier:
If you think I'm making "excuses" for the Ivory Tower, you have not read my posts on the topic.
Making excuses is exactly what you're doing. Judging by your statement, you seem to believe that the truth always lies on the side of those in positions of academic authority. I assure you it does not. Despite what you may believe, those in positions of such authority very frequently use it to propagate their own particular political agendas.
I suggest that you research this topic thoroughly. A good place to start would be to check out: www.thefire.org.
You should also get your hands on a copy of David Horowitz's book called One Party Classroom (http://www.amazon.com/One-Party-Classroom-Professors-Indoctrinate-Undermine/dp/0307452557/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1298860710&sr=8-6). In it, you will find the names of some of the most radical professors in higher ed today, many of whom are highly esteemed by their fellow academics. You can research their statements yourself, beyond what the author has written. This preliminary research should lead you to a wealth of information regarding the state of academic freedom today.
You will also find that for the many students who dared to challenge the views of these professors, "looking in the mirror", "hitting the stacks" and "working harder", didn't quite turn out the way you'd think it would.
Unless of course, by those statements you mean conforming to the views propagated by the professor, which deserves another conversation entirely.
My experiences played out differently.
Primarily because I was very selective--with one awful miscalculation--with whom I would work.
Second, it was clear that I was profoundly disinterested in the mark I received--I got the grades I deserved--and more focused on learning what was being taught.
Third, I made a point of taking seminars rather than classes centered around lectures.
Unfortunately, not all students are lucky enough to have opportunity to select the professors of their choice. You will find that often, students have no alternative but to take a particular class taught by a particular professor in order to fulfill program requirements. It is frequently these classes that are particularly politicized.
Entire post.John--
The issues which you're raising have been discussed on this BB before. The comments to which I referred date back to 2008. The search button is your friend.
My research on this topic and involvement in the issues under discussion arc from the mid 1980s to the present day.
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 21:47
John--
The issues which you're raising have been discussed on this BB before. The comments to which I referred date back to 2008. The search button is your friend.
You are not addressing the issues which I am raising in my posts. Please do so.
My research on this topic and involvement in the issues under discussion arc from the mid 1980s to the present day.
How can your experience and research yield statements like this?
Or, one could just go to a professor's office, poke in one's head and say "Hey, got a few minutes to talk about your comments on my essay?"
Sure he/she does. He (or she) can hit the stacks, look in the mirror, hit the stacks, take criticism to heart, hit the stacks, and work harder.
Again, I strongly urge you to start your research with the website and book I suggested. The website will give you insight into the battles over academic freedom going on today. The book will give you a good starting point for learning about some of the most influential modern academics and students' experience with these professors.
Entire post.John--
In this thread, you have left unanswered questions from members of this BB, including a QP. You expect people to answer your questions directly when you are unwilling to extend the same courtesy.
In any case, to answer one of your questions.How can your experience and research yield statements like this?The answer is five fold.
I know that if one wants change, one talks to professors, not other students.
I understand that one often gets respect by giving respect.
I generally checked the chip on my shoulder at the door.
I had mentors who would stomp on my head if I didn't.
I consistently demonstrated that I was more interested in knowing the answers that lead to the next sequence of questions rather than being "right."
As for your suggestion for further reading and research, I respectfully decline. When I want the poop on what is going on inside the Ivory Tower, I listen to folks inside the Ivory Tower or read what they've written. And, sometimes, they listen to me.
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 22:45
John--
In this thread, you have left unanswered questions from members of this BB, including a QP. You expect people to answer your questions directly when you are unwilling to extend the same courtesy.
In any case, to answer one of your questions.The answer is five fold.
I know that if one wants change, one talks to professors, not other students.
I understand that one often gets respect by giving respect.
I generally checked the chip on my shoulder at the door.
I had mentors who would stomp on my head if I didn't.
I consistently demonstrated that I was more interested in knowing the answers that lead to the next sequence of questions rather than being "right."
As for your suggestion for further reading and research, I respectfully decline. When I want the poop on what is going on inside the Ivory Tower, I listen to folks inside the Ivory Tower or read what they've written. And, sometimes, they listen to me.
Alright Sigaba,
We are now talking past each other so I'll end it right there.
I partially understand where you are coming from. That being said, I hope you realize that a title and a teaching job doesn't give one a monopoly on the truth or immunity from being questioned. Students come to universities for an education, not for political indoctrination. Students not only have a right, but an obligation to question their professors. In turn, professors and universities have a sacred duty to provide an environment of academic freedom that is free of biases and agendas for their students. Sure, professors, like everyone else have their own points of view, but they must leave those at the door of the classroom.
I also hope that you look into the sources I have suggested, even if you do not acknowledge so publicly. You may not agree with my opinions, as I certainly don't agree with yours, but you may find it valuable to gain some understanding into the "other side" of academia.
John_Chrichton
02-27-2011, 23:07
John, come on. Really?
The Conservative dominated radio talk show hosts will tell you the same thing I will tell you -- too bad. If the Liberals cannot make it on talk radio, that's because their message ---- well, it's weak, it sucks, ect....
If you're message isn't worth competeting with Conservative Radio than maybe you need to try harder next time.
Same goes for Higher Education. I don't want to hear about excuses or the "powers that be" hold back the conservative message. You are either good at what you teach or you aren't. I am not buying the BS that the Left is the reason the Right is under-represented in universities across the US.
You don't have enough personal representation on campuses, or experience among the universities in our nation, to make the kind of blanket statements you're making. You have just enough dangersous informatiion and not much else.
John, I wish you nothing but the best. Good luck!
I disagree. Given the statistics regarding the political make-up of college/university faculty, do you seriously believe that these political considerations are not taken into account during hiring/promotion decisions? How else can you explain the lack of "conservative" professors in higher ed? Do you truly believe that conservatives are that bad at teaching these subjects that they en masse cannot get/keep jobs in academia? As an example, you have to ask why it is that people like Ward Churchill stay in their departments are promoted within the university system for so long? The answer is politics. Those professors that don't meet the standard of political correctness established by the clique in power are either not hired or are forced out. /disagreement
Thank you very much sir for your wishes!
cszakolczai
02-28-2011, 00:34
I know of many "conservative" teachers within college classrooms. Is it possible that many of the "conservative" teachers just enter different fields of work therefore we do not hear their political opinions as loudly as the liberal history teacher who's job it is to teach the past? Lets not be foolish and think that ones bias is left at the door of a classroom, that has never and will never happen. Therefore the history teacher who teaches is more likely to comment on current political debates as opposed to the conservative accounting teacher who's job is merely to explain the workings of a proper balance sheet.
Also remember many teachers of history and other "intellectual" (I use this term losely) fields are required to write and be published in order to acquire tenure. I don't know of any college which requires an accounting teacher to write about the current political climate or their view upon history and the United States.
..........How else can you explain the lack of "conservative" professors in higher ed? ..........
Well, there is the old saying "Those who can do, those who can't teach".
There have been studies on just where intellectually each field of students stack up against each other. Those who pick education generally are not at the top of their class.
There are exceptions - of course, we all know some brilliant teachers.
1stindoor
02-28-2011, 05:41
Students come to universities for an education, not for political indoctrination. Students not only have a right, but an obligation to question their professors. In turn, professors and universities have a sacred duty to provide an environment of academic freedom that is free of biases and agendas for their students...
I've been quietly following this thread since it blew up. I consider myself pretty much a knuckle-dragger, especially where "higher education" is concerned. However I felt "obligated" to chime in on this post for a variety of reasons.
First, students go to universities for just about every reason under the sun...not just for a formal education. An education can come from a variety of places.
Secondly, while students may have a "right" to question their professors, students also have to accept the fact that there may very well be a reason why they're sitting with their peers looking down at at the podium on the receiving end of the discussion/seminar/lecture. Sometimes, for all their questions and arguements it comes down to the fact that the professor, good or bad, has at least already completed one part of his/her education and quite possibly already worked in their field of study.
Finally, I'll add that your ability to belabor a point and argue your position endlessly...will give you problems in the Special Warfare Center.
1stindoor
02-28-2011, 05:43
Well, there is the old saying "Those who can do, those who can't teach".
...and those who can't do either...administrate.
Sorry Richard.:D
Since I married a school teacher I'd add this last line...
Those that's can't do any of the above...run for the schoolboard.
That being said, I hope you realize that a title and a teaching job doesn't give one a monopoly on the truth or immunity from being questioned. Students come to universities for an education, not for political indoctrination. Students not only have a right, but an obligation to question their professors. In turn, professors and universities have a sacred duty to provide an environment of academic freedom that is free of biases and agendas for their students. Sure, professors, like everyone else have their own points of view, but they must leave those at the door of the classroom.
I also hope that you look into the sources I have suggested, even if you do not acknowledge so publicly. You may not agree with my opinions, as I certainly don't agree with yours, but you may find it valuable to gain some understanding into the "other side" of academia.
YGBSM.
Well - it is interesting that you posted this link (from the über-liberal NY Times, no less) to support your declared positon and it indicates 57% of academics claim to be moderate to conservative. I would asume that % varies from school to school, with some being more liberal and some being more conservative. However, one of the great things about this country is the ability to choose (within reason) one's school and move to another school if the culture at a particular school is uncomfortable for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal-2.html
As far as biases, we've all got them and yours definitely show through your posts here in this thread. Professors certainly have theirs, and I would venture to say most have been formed through decades of post-graduate experience, study, and on-going debate - something I doubt you have yet to accomplish. I may have been fortunate, but I always found - wiith few exceptions - there were nearly always 'work arounds' for avoiding a professor with whom I may have a particular dislike, and other professors who sought to mentor me would support such an action on my part. In several instances and after proving myself academically interested and interesting to them, those 'mentors' allowed me to pursue such an alternative path, even allowing me to do an independent study under their tutelege for coursework which would have required me to be with a professor with whom I might not get along or strongly disagreed. And professors, like many who choose to engage in debate here, seek to challenge a student or a peer to either support their arguments or to challenge them, to prove them wrong or to provide them with a line of reasoning to further investigate.
I have no idea what your major may be, but it has also been my experience that the schools and departments within the university and college systems vary rather significantly, even under the broader umbrella of the academic institution as a whole, with some departments or schools being historically more liberal than others. Simply changing a major can often change one's whole college experience and world-view.
MOO is that with a bit of seasoning you will, perhaps, find yourself expressing a different point of view. Or maybe not.
However, your obstinateness makes me wish I was 30 years younger and an instructor at SWCS when you came to selection...but I suspect you would not be any more pleased with me than I with you, and you seem to be with your professors as I suspect they are with you.
Actually, based on your posts, I'm a bit surprised you didn't choose Will Hunting for your screen name and find it interesting that you have chosen the name of a character who must have thought college to be important enough to risk his reputation by helping his best friend cheat on the SATs to get into college.
Richard :munchin
...Since I married a school teacher I'd add this last line...
Those that's can't do any of the above...run for the schoolboard.
Haha! Well, as stated prior, both of my parental figures were teachers at one point in their carrers. They are highly valued, as it is not an easy profession to work in, either way you look at it.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Holly, has anyone ever told you that we're adults, too? That some of us get on our knees and thanks "God" for every man and woman that puts their life on the line for us?
You're not swimming in the only gratitude pool by yourself, so give me a break with pretending you're the only person who is thankful.
You don't have a lock on gratitude, so spare me the drama.
Oh my indded. Well, not quite sure what to say to that...
Moving on, and back to topic, just looked up what Universities offer the ROTC Program, and with one exception; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia are absent from all three lists. (Princeton offers the Army-ROTC Program.):munchin
http://www.collegeprofiles.com/rotc-army.html
http://www.collegeprofiles.com/rotc-airforce.html
http://www.collegeprofiles.com/rotc-navy.html
cszakolczai
02-28-2011, 09:29
Haha! Well, as stated prior, both of my parental figures were teachers at one point in their carrers. They are highly valued, as it is not an easy profession to work in, either way you look at it.
Oh my indded. Well, not quite sure what to say to that...
Moving on, and back to topic, just looked up what Universities offer the ROTC Program, and with one exception; Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia are absent from all three lists. (Princeton offers the Army-ROTC Program.):munchin
http://www.collegeprofiles.com/rotc-army.html
http://www.collegeprofiles.com/rotc-airforce.html
http://www.collegeprofiles.com/rotc-navy.html
Princeton does offer the ROTC program and they are quite a liberal school as well. Actually, quite is an understatement, very liberal is more like it. So how do we explain a place like Princeton having an ROTC program and other colleges/universities not? Is it possible that there really isnt much of a coorelation between the political direction of a school and ROTC? Because I can look at another school in NJ and say that they are declared to be fairly liberal as well and they have ROTC.
So how do we explain a place like Princeton having an ROTC program and other colleges/universities not?
MIT has all three ROTC Programs at their establishment...so do a few other schools.
As far as the " Ivy League," though, sorry, but the big four have chosen to scoff, and spit on ROTC. They believe they are above such trivial programs, IMHO.
Oh well, too bad for them.:rolleyes: Better men are fortunate to find the Program at Better places. For the $$$ does not equal the quality, ever, IMNSHO.
Holly
Entire post.John--
IMO, the reason why we're "talking past" each other is because you are not using the search button nor are you visiting this BB's archives. Had you done so, you might have found some of the threads, including this one <<LINK (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20111)>>, in which members of this BB have discussed at length the complex issues you insist on simplifying to political ideology alone.
Are you going to answer directly any of the questions posed to you in this thread?
John_Chrichton
02-28-2011, 22:06
QPs 1stindoor & Richard:
You words and advice are noted, understood and heeded.
Now back to PT
:lifter
Dozer523
02-28-2011, 22:59
http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-student-loan-debt-2010-12
http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-about-student-loan-debt-2010-12#americans-now-owe-more-than-875-billion-on-student-loans-which-is-more-than-the-total-amount-that-americans-owe-on-their-credit-cards-1
Not that this really has anythig to do with this thread -- other then to add fuel to the I-hate-college fire.
Be sure to go through the little slide show, cuz a picture is worth . . . .
cszakolczai
02-28-2011, 23:03
MIT has all three ROTC Programs at their establishment...so do a few other schools.
As far as the " Ivy League," though, sorry, but the big four have chosen to scoff, and spit on ROTC. They believe they are above such trivial programs, IMHO.
Oh well, too bad for them.:rolleyes: Better men are fortunate to find the Program at Better places. For the $$$ does not equal the quality, ever, IMNSHO.
Holly
I'm not sure if spit and scoff is the right wording to use. I'm going to say they dont have enough interest in the program. Princeton doesnt have many guys in the ROTC program and I'm sure other schools just dont have the requests for the program. You have to look at the student body to judge the effectivness an ROTC program would have upon them. Visit places like Princeton and you'll see why. They have no interest in serving, they would rather spend their time elsewhere, like the lab or the library. To each his own.
I dont mean to be rude ma'am, but you actually have to visit the campuses to make such accusations. This thread should be an example of how the media reports on a subject and what actually happened at the debate/speech. Therefore what you may be told about the Ivy leagues and their view upon the military is not necessarily true.
You walk off the campus of VMI and almost immediately walk onto the campus of Washington and Lee University. W&L offers ROTC ICW a partnership with VMI. It's numbers are very small and they don't allow the wearing of the uniforms on the W&L campus, but they do recruit a quantity of quality JAG Officers for the military from their program.
As far as govt funds for colleges/universities based on whether or not they have an ROTC program, consider that we do send a goodly number of Officers to various post-grad programs offered by those universities to our benefit. Our TRANSCOM 'hub and spoke' system, for example, came about as a result of an Army Officer attending the Harvard MBA program.
And for my program as a West European FAO, for example, the programs recognized as being exceptional and for which I could attend were GWU, Columbia, Cornell, Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana. After looking at them all, I chose Indiana where there were also a number of Russian and Middle Eastern FAOs studying. Indiana and FAO Branch also allowed me an exception to policy to study Hebrew as a second European language because, as a German speaker, it allowed me to become familiar with Yiddish which was still a trans-national language throughout the OstBlock. My Hebrew professor was an adjunct faculty member from Israel whose husband was attending IU's Graduate School of Music and my Yiddish mentor was a Rabbi and Professor in the History Department.
Personally, I've never been much of a 'cut off your nose to spite your face' kind of guy when it comes to issues like this one, and that's the way I see it when it comes to ROTC - to each their own - including the decision as a school to either have an ROTC program or not. IMO, ROTC is not a key determinant as to the academic value of such institutions to our greater good.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Not that this really has anythig to do with this thread -- other then to add fuel to the I-hate-college fire. Be sure to go through the little slide show, cuz a picture is worth . . . .
So, John Crichton wrote an opinion piece for Business Insider? :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030306129.html
cszakolczai
03-04-2011, 08:51
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/03/AR2011030306129.html
Will be interested to see the turnout for the program. Just read the article from the NY times and was going to link it but you beat me to it.
Interesting reading.
Hearing of February 23, 2011
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/militaryengagement/hearing3.html
Historical and Reference Documents on the topic.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/militaryengagement/docs.html
The results of the ROTC Task Force are to be posted sometime today.
Richard :munchin
The Report of the Task Force on Military Engagement submitted to the University Senate at Columbia on Friday can be read here.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/militaryengagement/docs/20110304%20-%20TFMEReport.pdf
Interesting reading - maybe there will be an 'Eli compromise' regarding ROTC in Columbia's future. :confused:
3.4.7 Yale University
Yale University does not have on-campus ROTC program. Yale students may participate in Army ROTC through the University of New Haven, and an Air Force ROTC option is available through the University of Connecticut. Yale student do not have a Navy ROTC option available.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
UPDATE
University Senate Votes To Pass ROTC Resolution
The senate voted 51-17, with one abstention, to approve the ROTC resolution, a 74 percent margin.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/04/01/usenate-votes-pass-rotc-resolution
RESOLUTION ON COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY’S RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/archives/resolutions_archives/resolutions/10-11/resolution_relationships_w_armed_forces_3-31-2011.pdf
Richard :munchin
You know they really don't have to like us,but you would think these bastards would at least respect what we're doing for them
Big Teddy :munchin
It's hard to respect what you can't relate to, especially when you're a 22 year old college student.
We all know the type: :boohoo the obtuse pretty-boy with minimal life experience living on mommy and daddy's dime stretching his four year college experience out to five or six years because he doesn't want to face the reality that somewhere in that big world outside the frat house there's a possibility that his mediocre life skill isn't going to put food on his table. Perceptions are framed by a life taking shots from a beer bong, studying Jackass, the Movie for pointers on what to do next weekend, and occassionally fulfilling scholarly duties to a sufficient degree that won't get the parents to cut him off. His political views are molded by those around him, mostly fellow drunks and college professors whose narrow view on life is just as minimally diversified.
I've talked to more than my share of them - hell, I grew up with some of them. :mad:
The interactions usually turn out like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xXjp4zzVoM&feature=related)