Anti-war group targets on-campus military recruiters

[Master of Ossus]

Under the idea it's OK to screw everyone as long as you screw the people you are targeting? Tuition is vastly too high as it is.

Why is tuition too high as it is?

I guarantee that doing that would drive alot of perfectly respectable students out of college because they can't afford it.

That's bullshit and you know it. The price elasticity of demand for college education is miniscule, and students could easily transfer to other colleges if they felt that they weren't getting a fair deal at this particular school.

[Gil Hamilton]

Or they could simply switch collages or hey... guess what? Outprotest the protesters! It happens from time to time. If you want to be a private insitution and not respect American govement institions then by all means go ahead, we will draw the line somewhere of course but if you don't want recuriters(Who mind you at best get a small office and are only allowed to "advertise" on certian days) on campus then you must not want the goverment there to help you, to provided you with aid and protection. Fine lets take away the recuriters but we are also taking away anything else we were providing you to for free(Free relativly speaking your parents and soon you or are paying for it through taxes)

Switching colleges is not exactly an easy process that can be done at the drop of a hat. It involves getting accepted to another college and transfering credits, which can be a real pain and also could mean losing them (some credits don't transfer very easily). It also takes some months to do. I'm transfering to the University of Pittsburgh next year and I'm already starting the process now under the suggestion of the school even though I'm an honors student with very high grades because I've got to get into the system early if I want the transfer to have a chance of being successful. It's all well and good for you to go "Change schools, huh huh huh..." but actually doing it is something else entirely.

Secondly, "outprotesting the protesters" isn't something that generally happens. Counter mobs rarely spontaneously form and a single person isn't going to step to the fore without one. Besides, if you are going to put forward the idea that people are somehow culpable for the actions of others, even when they weren't present at the time to do anything about it, and thus should be punished along side them, then you are off your loop. By that logic, you are just as responsible for the bile that the Pat Robertson types put forward because you haven't actually done anything to stop them, even if you disagree with them vehemently.

So why punish people that had nothing to do with it? Like I said, tuition is high enough as it is. Many good students are only there by the skin of their teeth due to expenses and they'll end up having to drop out if what you think is "the perfect solution" happens.

[The Third Man]

But then we get into the realm of asking ourselves if intimidation done without actual physical contact is any less an offense?

That's going a bit of topic, but I'm up for it:

Morally speaking, it's probably no lesser offence. Legally speaking, most law systems seem to take a dim view when physical violence is brought into play. Maybe that's because abuse of one's physical prowess is easier to objectively prove and quantify in a legal setting than abuse of mental prowess.

To go even further off topic, there are other abuses of power beyond mental and physical. There are, for example, abuse of professional or other relationships, and abuse of financial power. Sometimes the law takes a dim view of these, sometimes it doesn't. I'm thinking with particular reference to your rape example.

If you want a personal, subjective view on the business of applying different types of intimidation or coercion, then what I recently said in the "hitting girls" thread applies: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Competent people try other, more effective methods first.

And to come back on topic, it would seem from this example that in the world of generating newspaper sales, the violent, physical contact case is a greater, more reader-compelling offence.

[Master of Ossus]

Switching colleges is not exactly an easy process that can be done at the drop of a hat. It involves getting accepted to another college and transfering credits, which can be a real pain and also could mean losing them (some credits don't transfer very easily). It also takes some months to do. I'm transfering to the University of Pittsburgh next year and I'm already starting the process now under the suggestion of the school even though I'm an honors student with very high grades because I've got to get into the system early if I want the transfer to have a chance of being successful. It's all well and good for you to go "Change schools, huh huh huh..." but actually doing it is something else entirely.

Nonetheless, it is an option. People transferred into and out of my college all the time--we got at least 3-6 transfer students every year in a school of only 1500. Other colleges have even less stringent transfer requirements.

So why punish people that had nothing to do with it? Like I said, tuition is high enough as it is.

The administration obviously didn't handle the situation very well, and whether you like it or not people are punished or rewarded all the time based on how well the school's administration is performing.

Even after the fact, the school's students could easily have asked the administration to take action against those responsible--the school knows the regulations regarding its Federal funding.

Many good students are only there by the skin of their teeth due to expenses and they'll end up having to drop out if what you think is "the perfect solution" happens.

Bullshit. Hardly anyone ever drops out of school for financial reasons, since student loans are so affordable and since other schools are always an option, albeit a difficult one.

[Gil Hamilton]

But then we get into the realm of asking ourselves if intimidation done without actual physical contact is any less an offense?

What if a man basically pressures a woman into haveing sex when she doesn't weant to, although he never actually hurts her or even directly threatens it? Implication, intimidation, and....? The end result is still rape.

Already is a crime, called "Assault". When they say "Assault and Battery", assault is the threat of direct physical harm and battery is the actual direct physical harm. Assault is still a crime, even if battery doesn't occur.

[Big Phil]

If you want a personal, subjective view on the business of applying different types of intimidation or coercion, then what I recently said in the "hitting girls" thread applies: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Competent people try other, more effective methods first.

Off topic - This is the only part of your statement with which I disagree. Violence is one solution among many, and to disallow some solutions without considering the context is a bad idea. To quote the inimitable Robert A. Heinlein:

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms.

[Medic]

Well this is as good a time as ever to mention the most despicable anti-war comment I have thus far heard in the war.

Okay, so there was this anti-war speaker at UCSD and he says the normal stuff, blah blah. He leaves and the cameras and newspeople leave too. Well, after that, there is still 1 microphone in the crowd and this rabid anti-war female takes over the mike and says...
"... we need to support the resistance! This war is wrong and we need to get out and the best way to do that is to support the insurgents!"
Anti-war my fucking ass you cunt. This bitch actually said to support the insurgency! I know it's the most extremem examdple but it's still worth throwing out there.

She wasn't booed off the podium either. Hell, the (equally rabid I imagine) crowd seemed quite amenable to the reasoning.

[The Third Man]

If you want a personal, subjective view on the business of applying different types of intimidation or coercion, then what I recently said in the "hitting girls" thread applies: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Competent people try other, more effective methods first.

Off topic - This is the only part of your statement with which I disagree. Violence is one solution among many, and to disallow some solutions without considering the context is a bad idea.

Well, it's a personal, subjective thing. Maybe it's simply that I'm biased because I'm not well-equipped to wreak violence.

To quote the inimitable Robert A. Heinlein:

Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms.

Ooo-err. I wouldn't like to meet Mr H of a night after he'd had a few.

[Medic]

Oh but about this whole mess: it's a volunteer force. So we're gonna need recruiters, if a college doesn't like this tough, people like me have to accept that an American flag can be burned before our eyes so pansy ass college students have to suck a little down too.

Freedom is if for everyone, it protects the rights of everyone but it bends for no one's self-interest.

[Gil Hamilton]

Nonetheless, it is an option. People transferred into and out of my college all the time--we got at least 3-6 transfer students every year in a school of only 1500. Other colleges have even less stringent transfer requirements.

Wrong. It's not always an option. Schools that do transfers frequently have a credit and course requirement in order to jump ship. For instance, to get into the particular school of Pitt I'm going to, they require you to have 48 credits already under your belt before they even seriously give you any thought for transfer, plus several basic courses, like Intermediate Algebra. I can transfer now because I started college with that goal in mind and have completed my transfer requirements in order to start the process, but that does absolutely nothing to someone just starting college. What happens if you are just starting college and you don't meet the transfer requirements for those colleges (something that can take a few semesters to aquire)? Kind of a problem. Doing a transfer is only an option with considerable preplanning and work. It is not something that people just do/

The administration obviously didn't handle the situation very well, and whether you like it or not people are punished or rewarded all the time based on how well the school's administration is performing.

Even after the fact, the school's students could easily have asked the administration to take action against those responsible--the school knows the regulations regarding its Federal funding.

And they'd do what exactly? Chances are the administration knows full well what happened before someone who wasn't there does, and if they hadn't taken any sort of action already, chances are they aren't going to, largely because proving who was involved would be a nightmare.

Like I said, if you are going to hold people accountable for the shit that a few other people do when they are not around and whom they had no connection to, then you've got alot of explaining to do about yourself. That logic is highly applicable to you and everyone here if we are going that road about some truly heinous things.

Bullshit. Hardly anyone ever drops out of school for financial reasons, since student loans are so affordable and since other schools are always an option, albeit a difficult one.

Actually, I've known plenty of people who have dropped out because they can't afford to go to college and due to the fact that their job doesn't give them enough hours to pay for it (or the catch-22, if it did give them enough hours, they'd have to drop out anyway, due to not having enough time for both).

Plus, student loans do not fall out of trees. I just did a FASFA myself, Ossus, and it was a major pain in the ass to get, not to mention all the student loans that I completely failed to qualify for various, usually demographic or tax-related reasons (like the PELL). When it comes to student loans, there are only a few options available, and if you still can barely afford school after the student loans are spent, you are screwed when the next round of tuition hikes come around. Do you honestly thing that if student tuition went up 30% due to the powers-that-be doing shit that students can just keep getting more and more student loans to stay there? Somethings got to break. It's bad enough that we've got textbook manufacturers tacking on worthless "bundles" that never get used simply so they can raise the price of books by 50 bucks to a product that already costs way too much and schools raising tuition because they can get away with it.

[Big Phil]

If you want a personal, subjective view on the business of applying different types of intimidation or coercion, then what I recently said in the "hitting girls" thread applies: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". Competent people try other, more effective methods first.

Off topic - This is the only part of your statement with which I disagree. Violence is one solution among many, and to disallow some solutions without considering the context is a bad idea.

Well, it's a personal, subjective thing. Maybe it's simply that I'm biased because I'm not well-equipped to wreak violence.

And I have no objection to your thinking that way - it's certainly a nicer way of doing things than fighting, but I do think it is unrealistic.

[Big Phil]

Well this is as good a time as ever to mention the most despicable anti-war comment I have thus far heard in the war.

Okay, so there was this anti-war speaker at UCSD and he says the normal stuff, blah blah. He leaves and the cameras and newspeople leave too. Well, after that, there is still 1 microphone in the crowd and this rabid anti-war female takes over the mike and says...
"... we need to support the resistance! This war is wrong and we need to get out and the best way to do that is to support the insurgents!"
Anti-war my fucking ass you cunt. This bitch actually said to support the insurgency! I know it's the most extremem examdple but it's still worth throwing out there.

She wasn't booed off the podium either. Hell, the (equally rabid I imagine) crowd seemed quite amenable to the reasoning.

This is hardly a new phenomenon, unfortunately. During WWII, Lindberg and his group opposed the war, and some of them were Nazi sympathizers.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well this is as good a time as ever to mention the most despicable anti-war comment I have thus far heard in the war.

Okay, so there was this anti-war speaker at UCSD and he says the normal stuff, blah blah. He leaves and the cameras and newspeople leave too. Well, after that, there is still 1 microphone in the crowd and this rabid anti-war female takes over the mike and says...
"... we need to support the resistance! This war is wrong and we need to get out and the best way to do that is to support the insurgents!"
Anti-war my fucking ass you cunt. This bitch actually said to support the insurgency! I know it's the most extremem examdple but it's still worth throwing out there.

She wasn't booed off the podium either. Hell, the (equally rabid I imagine) crowd seemed quite amenable to the reasoning.

Isn't this supposed to be like something that happened in our history text books? Something about the 60's and 70's? And people why the word 'Liberal' is used as an insult by our president.

[Guardsman Bass]

Moronic protestors- they are recruiting people to voluntarily join the armed forces. It's not like they are MPs grabbing draft dodgers.

[Wicked Pilot]

They can protest all they want, it's their right after all, but when you throw shit at someone your ass needs to be arrested.

[Rogue 9]

Okay normally I wouldn't do this, but throwing stuff at military recruiters for a policy that isn't even the recruiters' fault merits it, I think. *Sics the Puget Sound chapter of Protest Warrior on them.*

[jahara]

It was a dickhead thing for the protestors to do. I think it does undermine the whole point of the process. Now as for the school wanting to kick the recruiters off of campus because the military's policies concerning gays, there now exists legal precedent concerning this matter. The US Federal Court (3rd circut) ruled that Yale can prevent the recruiters from using campus facilities and not suffer a reduction in federal funding. I honestly have no problem with the policy.

Yale gets OK to ban military recruiters

By The Associated Press
02.02.05
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A federal judge has ruled in favor of Yale Law School faculty members who sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an effort to block military recruiters from campus.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall, in her Jan. 31 ruling, found the government unconstitutionally applied the Solomon Amendment, a 1995 federal law which allows the secretary of defense to deny federal funding to colleges if they prohibit or prevent military recruitment on campus.

The decision means that the law school will be able to turn military recruiters away for the first time in two years to protest the government's ban against gays serving openly in the armed forces.

"We don't want to run a law school where outsiders can come in and discriminate against our students based on race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation," Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh said yesterday.

In 1978, Yale became one of the first law schools in the country to include gays in its non-discrimination policy. For two decades, to protest the government's discrimination against gays, the law school refused to let military recruiters participate in its interview program.

In the months following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Pentagon threatened to cut billions in federal aid to Yale and other schools that were refusing to allow recruiters.

Yale had more than $320 million in federal aid in jeopardy and the faculty at Yale Law School agreed to waive the non-discrimination policy for military recruiters.

However, in October 2003, they filed a lawsuit against Rumsfeld, claiming that their free-speech rights were being violated. Hall agreed, and also found that "the Solomon Amendment is not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest, and thus unjustifiably burdens" the faculty members’ First Amendment association rights.

Hall's ruling (see part 1, part 2) follows one by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, which found that universities have a First Amendment right to keep the recruiters away because of their biases. It also said higher educational institutions could do this without fear of losing federal money.

Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives today urged the federal government to contest the 3rd Circuit ruling. The nonbinding resolution, approved 327-84, expresses support for the Solomon Amendment, named for the late Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.

"This decision threatens to severely damage the ability of the military to recruit the highly qualified candidates necessary during a time of war," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.

But opponents of the resolution said colleges with anti-discrimination policies are only preventing recruiters from using campus facilities, not from contacting students.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., added that supporters of the Solomon Amendment "are the ones who are depriving the armed services of able-bodied people" because of the ban on gays. "You are the ones who have driven thousands, literally thousands, of perfectly capable men and women out of the military."

The Justice Department said last month that it would ask the Supreme Court to overturn the 3rd Circuit's ruling, saying it needs access to law schools to fill the ranks of the military's Judge Advocate General Corps.

The House last year passed legislation that would have expanded the law to add CIA and other military-related funding to the list of funds denied colleges that bar recruiters. The Senate never took up the legislation.


Related

3rd Circuit: Colleges may bar military recruiters from campus
Judges rule 2-1 to strike down Solomon Amendment, saying law infringes on free-speech rights of law schools that oppose military's ban on gays. 11.30.04

Now who knows what will happen once the politicians get through with this.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As a person who had to make the decision not to join the armed forces due to complications regarding my sexual orientation, I can't help but whole-heartedly agree with Yale.

[Obloquium]

The US Federal Court (3rd circut) ruled that Yale can prevent the recruiters from using campus facilities and not suffer a reduction in federal funding.

Third Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs met the burden for a preliminary injunction [1]. District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled Solomon unconstitutional [2,3].[/url]

[jegs2]

The recruiter in the picture was the recipient of a water bottle or two hurled in his direction -- the story broke in the Army Times last week. It's not surprising, seeing as how this happened in Seattle (which is slightly left of San Francisco IMO). The recruiter in question was present on campus for a scheduled and authorized table day. According to the story the protest in question was designed to coincide with the inauguration of President Bush.

My recruiters out here in the Midwest are targeted by verbal abuse from time to time on campuses, but we go out of our way to plan recruiter visits, table days and presentations with the colleges before showing up, and we usually advertize them with fliers and spots in college newspapers. No college has shut us out completely, although one private college allows only two visits per year (one of my recruiters being a graduate from that institution).

[CX]

Just to explain the "Don't ask don't tell" thing that a few people seem to be against; it's actually a good thing because when they did your yearly evaluations they used to be able to ask you if you were gay (they didn't quite put it that way, but the question was clear). Don't ask don't tell means they can no longer ask that for any reason, and that they would basically have to catch someone in the act to kick them out. Not exactly perfect mind you, but the best President Clinton could manage at the time and the best that can be done until the majority of this country decides it's not okay to discriminate against people for something they can't control.

[Chmee]

"This decision threatens to severely damage the ability of the military to recruit the highly qualified candidates necessary during a time of war," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn.

Yet, Mr. Kline probably has no problem telling the qualified gay candidates that the military doesn't need them ......

Sometimes the shit gets so deep in Congress, you wonder if incoming freshmen should be issued snorkels.

[Enforcer Talen]

ja, Ive wondered about that, since we're losing arabic speakers. .

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Just to explain the "Don't ask don't tell" thing that a few people seem to be against; it's actually a good thing because when they did your yearly evaluations they used to be able to ask you if you were gay (they didn't quite put it that way, but the question was clear). Don't ask don't tell means they can no longer ask that for any reason, and that they would basically have to catch someone in the act to kick them out. Not exactly perfect mind you, but the best President Clinton could manage at the time and the best that can be done until the majority of this country decides it's not okay to discriminate against people for something they can't control.

I'm not discrediting Clinton's effort to eliminate discrimination against gays in the military. But that doesn't mean that the current "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is in any stretch of the imagination indiscriminate. The fact you can be kicked out of service for revealing your sexual orientation should be grounds for protest.

[Glocksman]

The military's policies on Gays are immaterial to the central point of the Solomon Amendment.

The question is whether or not the Federal Government has the right to deny funding to universities that do not allow certain Federal officials (military recruiters) on campus. Judge Hall's ruling flies in the face of the established precedent that Federal rules can accompany Federal funding. I predict that she'll be reversed if it makes it to the SC. Her contention that denying Federal funding amounts to a restriction of the Constitutional rights of the professors is bullshit for the simple reason that there is no right to Federal aid for private colleges. The Feds aren't making it illegal to throw recruiters off campus, all they are doing is saying 'Go ahead, but we won't give you any more cash'. Government is not required to subsidize speech.

Yale and any other school that denies recruiters access should lose Federal funding.