Wounded Vet Heckled at Columbia

[Utah Bob]

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.

[kgoerz]

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.

[tonyz]

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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.) 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

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

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.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.) 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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

...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.

[tonyz]

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/201...s-queer-groups

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

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

[dennisw]

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]

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...

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by dennisw

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.

Originally Posted by dennisw

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?

Originally Posted by dennisw

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.

Originally Posted by dennisw

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?*

Originally Posted by dennisw

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

Originally Posted by dennisw

No one is questioning their right to be passionate.

And the following two points.

Originally Posted by dennisw

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

Originally Posted by dennisw

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.

Originally Posted by dennisw

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]

Originally Posted by kgoerz

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.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.