Discrimination Policy Amended: New Policy Wording Adds Military Status to Protected Group List

24 March 2006 Columbia Spectator article "Discrimination Policy Amended: New Policy Wording Adds Military Status to Protected Group List".  Note:  When Columbia revised its antidiscrimination rules to include all military veterans it began the statement with the words "Columbia University is committed to providing a learning environment free from unlawful discrimination".  Since the previous antidiscrimination rules had been used to argue against ROTC on the basis of discrimination against openly homosexual people in the military this wording is interesting because "Don't ask, don't tell" is the law, and therefore not unlawful.  However, this Spectator article adds another possible explanation.  University spokesperson Susan Brown said that the new statement "is a semantic clarification, not a policy shift. New York State Law had already held military status as a protected category, and the old policy included “any other legally protected status”".  This suggests the possibility that Columbia may have been trying to include in its policy all forms of unlawful discrimination without meaning to accept forms of discrimination mandated for the military by federal law, but Columbia has not commented more definitively on the wording change.

Opportunity Disguised

24 March 2006 Columbia Spectator editorial "Opportunity Disguised".  Note:  "Getting as many liberal-minded Columbia lawyers as possible, both gay and straight, into the military’s judge advocate general corps would be one of the best ways to turn the tide against “don’t ask, don’t tell” ... Shunting ROTC off to Fordham is a great symbolic way to protest the military’s policies, but it does very little to accomplish real progress. Increasing Columbia’s involvement with the military through recruiting and ROTC might rankle some, but it would be the best way for Columbians to work for justice."

Rumsfeld 1, Columbia 0" by Chris Kulawik CC '08. Note: Kulawik points out that Columbia has many programs that discriminate by race

22 March 2006 Columbia Spectator column "Rumsfeld 1, Columbia 0" by Chris Kulawik CC '08.  Note: Kulawik points out that Columbia has many programs that discriminate by race and gender and concludes that to "claim that ROTC is the only such case ... is blatant hypocrisy".  He also recounts how anti-ROTC students told him that “The racist military takes advantage of minority students; they aren’t able to understand what exactly they’re getting into.”

War College

10 March 2006 The New Republic article "War College" by Peter Beinart.  Note:  Beinart describes the scene outside the Columbia University Senate vote on ROTC on 6 May 2005: "Outside the senate auditorium, some pro-rotc students hung a banner reading a vote for rotc is a vote for the heroes of our generation. With the Court decision as her pretext, Senator Clinton's opportunity is clear: Go to Columbia and tell its leaders that those students are right... Today, the Serviceman's Legal Defense Network--which represents gays and lesbians in the military--understands the same thing. Which is why it does not oppose rotc on campus, even as it struggles heroically against "don't ask, don't tell." It is Bollinger and Brinkley who, by shunning the military, have placed themselves in the oppositional, anti-liberal tradition of the New Left."

Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment: Unanimous Ruling Affirms Military’s Right to Recruit on College Campuses

8 March 2006 Columbia Spectator article "Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment: Unanimous Ruling Affirms Military’s Right to Recruit on College Campuses".  Note:  ROTC opponent Nate Walker TC '07 said it was likely that the Pentagon would use the court victory to seek to restore ROTC at Columbia, while Sean Wilkes CC '06, head of Advocates for Columbia ROTC, said it was unlikely

Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment: Columbia Could Face Choice Between ROTC and Federal Funding

6 March 2006 Columbia Spectator article "Supreme Court Upholds Solomon Amendment: Columbia Could Face Choice Between ROTC and Federal Funding".  Note:  The ruling says nothing about ROTC and the reasoning used in upholding the Solomon Amendment, that "recruiters are not part of the law school", does not apply to a full ROTC program, where instructors are faculty members and ROTC courses are in the university's list of courses.  However, the Pentagon's likely offer to Columbia was an ROTC satellite office, not a full ROTC program, for which the faculty appointment and course offering issues would not apply.