Observations from the third and final Columbia ROTC Forum

Those of you that follow me on the Twitter Machine already know I attended last night's town hall on the possible return of ROTC to Columbia's campus. I got lured there by the possibility of fireworks and the promise of post-event Guinness. Though this event lacked the heckling of the last town hall meeting, there were plenty of passions on display - muted hissings and snide laughter were almost as prevalent as Princess Leia anti-imperialist speeches.

My take: ROTC should be allowed to return to Columbia, though it's no guarantee the military will find it worth their while to sustain a program there. I also found that most of the anti-ROTC speakers didn't have any idea of what ROTC actually is, or what it's relationship is with a college that hosts it, but that's not really their fault - to quote Staff Sergeant Bulldog about fobbits, "they just don't know any betta.'"

Some random observations and opinions, in the order found in my notepad. Be warned: red herrings, strawmen, and crazy people were abound!

- The event was hosted in the Altschul Auditorium, in Columbia's International Affairs Building. (Better known as SIPA, School of International and Public Affairs.) University police and some dude in a suit were checking IDs at the door; one had to have a school ID (or presumably, media credentials) to get in the door. (Did I use a now-expired school ID? Why yes, yes I did.)

- My guesstimation - over 300 people in attendance.

- Provost Claude Steele gave the opening remarks, acknowledging the "robust crowd." He walked us through the process - these town halls are for members of the Columbia community to express their recommendations to the Task Force on Military Engagement, made up of five students and four faculty members. From there, the Task Force writes a report and makes a recommendation of whether or not to reinstitute ROTC on campus to the Columbia Senate, sometime in early March. After that, the Senate will vote, which will "inform" the President of Columbia and the Board of Trustees. So yeah, a lot of red tape, just like anywhere else.

- There were lots and lots of calls for civility before the microphones were opened up to the public.

- My informal number-crunching showed that 22 speakers expressed pro-ROTC sentiments, 27 expressed anti-ROTC at Columbia sentiments, and 2 expressed some other thing entirely.

- One early anti-ROTC speaker cited Cadet Command's ban on using Wikileaks as a research source as evidence that cadets wouldn't be able to fully commit themselves to academia.

- Every single History professor that spoke called for a return of ROTC to campus. Every single Anthropology professor that spoke called for the continuation of the ROTC ban on campus. Thoughts, pop philosophers?

- A Poly Sci professor implored Columbia to influence the military through ROTC, i.e. change from within, and said the military shouldn't just be led by West Pointers and graduates of "East Jesus State." This earned some laughs, but raised elitist bells with a lot of people, and deservedly so, methought. (Whoa! Methought actually passed the spell checker! Weird.)

- Columbia MilVets cited the latest vet statistics: 340 GWOT veterans are currently at Columbia, with approximately 200 of those being in the undergrad world. This is the most in the Ivy League.

- A pro-ROTC speaker, a girl from San Antonio, talked about her Naval Academy friend walking around Columbia in his dress whites, and being yelled at and told to go home. Maybe it was after Labor Day?

- Everyone in the audience was trying really, really hard to be civil, but it proved impossible, so a series of Clap Wars ensued, including one buffoon in front of me banging on his desk.

- It seemed like the most trotted-out argument for the anti-ROTC speakers was that the military's current ban on transgenders violates Columbia's anti-discrimination policy, and that ethically, Columbia can't invite an organization onto campus that so openly violates this policy. No offense to my transgender brothers and sisters out there, but are we really having this conversation? Only in New York City. (Also, taken from a Tweep - stop moving the goalposts. First it was DADT, now it's this. What's next - the military discriminates against midgets and fat people?)

- A veteran student restated the "there are people out there plotting to kill you" line that got the injured vet heckled last week. Snickering follows, and an Anthro professor waiting to speak said "No, I don't think that's the case," to those around him.

- Great quote from a Marine Iraq vet, talking about how the military is not perfect, but improving, and that Columbia needs to recognize such: "The nature of progress is there's no end to it."

- One undergrad girl claimed the military is responsible for creating our enemies, through our foreign policy pursuits. Was this accusation vague and nebulous - of course. She's not entirely wrong, but lost in her passion was nuance. She'll grow out of it. Probably.

- There was a call for an executive branch within the military, to counter-balance the military's chain-of-command structure. This would've come in handy during the downfall of the Kaboom blog, don't you think?

- "What freedoms do the military uphold, and for whom?" A rhetorical question asked by a speaker. She went on to say that the military doesn't protect freedom, but open debate and dialogue do. At this point my ears started to bleed.

- A breakthrough! Speakers on both sides agree that the faux-controversy last week generated by the article in The New York Post was unfair, as it was four seconds in an otherwise civil 2.5-hour debate.

- The Task Force got absolutely reamed by speaker after speaker. Claims of lack of transparency and that it was set up to push ROTC through, regardless of public sentiment. The funny part was watching the four members of the TF present just have to sit there and take it. Brutal. (But also funny.)

- A graduate student asked for more transparency regarding what ROTC provides students. At this point, despite my promises to myself to not speak, I try to get in line to share my ROTC experiences at Wake. (I.E. yes - we were students first and cadets second! We went to class and wore civilian clothes and drank beer and everything. We also didn't hold the Board of Trustees hostage to meet our demands of a 24-hour bodega.) Unfortunately, they already capped the lines, so I couldn't speak. I avoided the temptation to ironically yell out "my voice will be heard!" and instead returned to my seat and ate Doritos.

- By and large, international students spoke out against ROTC, and the U.S. military, in general.

- Apparently, ROTC will "militarize" the campus of Columbia. I LOLed.

- Another grad student argued that Columbia already allowed vets into their classrooms, so clearly, they've done enough. "The school of General Studies ... is where they can go to unlearn what they learned in the military."

- A note, addressed to "future Matt:" You turned down Knicks tickets for this. On Carmelo Anthony's debut. Idiot.

- A SIPA econ professor told the Task Force "it looks like this is going to go through, no matter what we say."

- An honest to God "no blood for oil" chant. 2003 called and demanded it or something.

- A Columbia law student and Iraq vet talked about his ROTC experience at Cornell. Thank Allah.

That's it. I stayed for the whole thing, despite myself. I begrudgingly admit that the Forum was worth my time, and I thank the Task Force on Military Engagement for hosting it. If nothing else, I was reminded that another side of the debate exists, and they are vocal, passionate, and engaged. I'll leave it at that.

(Okay, one more thing - think the anti-ROTC protestors would support a return to the draft? Let's channel that derivative outrage into something worthwhile!)