College Politics - you decide!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you'd read the opening post you would have realised that the move isn't a protest against the Iraq war (nominally, at least).

Nominally being the key word. As I said, the timing of this act is rather suspicious. It is correct, however, that the Act does not mention the Iraq War - it is equally possible that the timing of the act has more to do with current political debates about gay rights than an anti-military or anti-administration sentiment.

[JohnT]

I don't know. I've been to the Whitman College site, the site for Reid Hall, and the site for the ASWC and I see nothing that gives them the authority to determine who is or is not allowed in the work placement drive.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The "gay lobby" at Whitman College is much more numerous and powerful than the "army lobby" or even "conservative lobby." That may be the reason; it may also be that the overwhelmingly liberal ASWC Senate wants to "stick it to the man." Or it may be that they genuinely think that their duty is to speak out against discriminitory policies. The timing seems somewhat suspicious to me, however - the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has been around for some time.

Whitman, while not some top tier school, is good enough for many students to get better paying jobs than an enlisted soldier. I'd doubt many of the students there are going to join after the army. Instead, they are just people who want to pay for college (which is the army is really good at).

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If you'd read the opening post you would have realised that the move isn't a protest against the Iraq war (nominally, at least).

I did. There weren't any of these bans while Clinton was president.

Even aside from that, they are hurting students. Good for these guys that they have rich parents to give them so much free time to do things like that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by JohnT
I don't know. I've been to the Whitman College site, the site for Reid Hall, and the site for the ASWC and I see nothing that gives them the authority to determine who is or is not allowed in the work placement drive.

You are a dedicated researcher

The authority or lack thereof, however, may not be the issue - in this case, the power resides with ASWC - they win by default, even if they don't have the authority, because there is no superior or equivalent organization that is capable or willing to tell them to mind their own business.

Thus, even if we establish that they do not have the authority, the question remains - is it appropriate for a college to ban military recruiters because of the military's policies?

[JohnT]

You said "willing" which is an issue unto itself, but the obvious superior, capable party is the College itself.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

I did. There weren't any of these bans while Clinton was president.

Even aside from that, they are hurting students. Good for these guys that they have rich parents to give them so much free time to do things like that.

a) The case should be argued on its putative motivation, not some assumed hidden agenda.

b) 10 years ago people were just happy to get "don't ask don't tell". By granting a concession the Clinton Administration undercut support for the issue for at least the near future. Times have continued to change, and now "don't ask don't tell" is no longer viewed as enough.

c) There's always state schools, you know.

d) If the American dream is as alive as some folks seem to think, it should be a simple matter to get college loans and then repay your massive debt with the huge salary you're going to make.

e) It's student government. The people involved are self-selecting to be useless ****wits. You won't find me arguing with you on that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by JohnT
You said "willing" which is an issue unto itself, but the obvious superior, capable party is the College itself.

Quite. I should have said capable and willing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The authority or lack thereof, however, may not be the issue - in this case, the power resides with ASWC - they win by default, even if they don't have the authority, because there is no superior or equivalent organization that is capable or willing to tell them to mind their own business

Are you seriously telling me that the college's administration lets the student government run wild in regulating the use of facilities owned by the college?

If so, then the problem extends far beyond the current controversy. Most student governments I'm acquainted with are allowed to huff and puff as much as they want to, but have virtually no power.

[Zkribbler]

The problem the college will have to deal with is that anti-gay discrimination isn't unlawful when practiced by the military.

I can't see the RUDE Act applying to unlawful discrimination but there's problem when trying to apply it to "lawful" discrimination...especially when Congress conditions federal aid upon granting the military recruiting access to the student body. I think the feds have the college by the pursestrings.

The way this whole mess needs to be addressed is to eliminate anti-gay discrimination in the military.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


a) The case should be argued on its putative motivation, not some assumed hidden agenda.

b) 10 years ago people were just happy to get "don't ask don't tell". By granting a concession the Clinton Administration undercut support for the issue for at least the near future. Times have continued to change, and now "don't ask don't tell" is no longer viewed as enough.

c) There's always state schools, you know.

d) If the American dream is as alive as some folks seem to think, it should be a simple matter to get college loans and then repay your massive debt with the huge salary you're going to make.

e) It's student government. The people involved are self-selecting to be useless ****wits. You won't find me arguing with you on that.

a) From my experience in the army (and from stories from psychologists in the military), there is plenty of freedom to hide. It's expected to go by the wayside eventually. Having DSM IV not classifying Homosexuality as a disorder allow many homosexuals to stay in because if it's not maladaptive, then the main way to kick them out is gone.

b) If the military was just about helping out Europe in missions to Kosovo or whatnot, it is at least my perception (could be wrong) that it'd be different. BTW, my army unit is going to Kosovo. Ha.

c) Many good state schools can still be much higher than $20k a year including room and board.

d) Army allows better loans generally and with the army giving better deals on health and life insurance than average, it is the best choice for some people.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
b) If the military was just about helping out Europe in missions to Kosovo or whatnot, it is at least my perception (could be wrong) that it'd be different. BTW, my army unit is going to Kosovo. Ha.

Good luck. That's good work that's going on over there.

c) Many good state schools can still be much higher than $20k a year including room and board.

Depends what you allow for room and board. I survived on 6500$ per annum for rent, food and all other incidentals. I also lost 15 pounds (from 160lbs at 5'11 to 145) my final year in the 3 months before sumertime rolled around. If your state school costs more than 6000-7000$ in straight tuition for in-state residents then you might want to consider writing your governor. Up in the land of socialism my school cost 2500$CAN per annum for Quebec residents.

d) Army allows better loans generally and with the army giving better deals on health and life insurance than average, it is the best choice for some people.

It also means that you have to join the ****ing army.

Don't get me wrong; there's nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with putting people in the situation where they have to choose between getting a decent education and not having to sign on for a three year stint.

Besides which, as far as I can see the University is simply banning recruiters, not making it impossible for somebody to join up on their own.

[Apocalypse]

B) I'm not going, just helping to train the unit

C) I know that Virginia has one of the cheapest in state tuitions in the country and the total cost for most schools there is at least $15K in state. If I was going to school back in Texas to somewhere like UT, it'd be more than $20k for me.

D) Army isn't too bad. Especially some jobs.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Are you seriously telling me that the college's administration lets the student government run wild in regulating the use of facilities owned by the college?

If so, then the problem extends far beyond the current controversy. Most student governments I'm acquainted with are allowed to huff and puff as much as they want to, but have virtually no power.

I'm not making a general claim. I'm saying that, in this particular instance, the College doesn't seem to care enough to step in.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The problem the college will have to deal with is that anti-gay discrimination isn't unlawful when practiced by the military.

I can't see the RUDE Act applying to unlawful discrimination but there's problem when trying to apply it to "lawful" discrimination...especially when Congress conditions federal aid upon granting the military recruiting access to the student body. I think the feds have the college by the pursestrings.

The way this whole mess needs to be addressed is to eliminate anti-gay discrimination in the military.

ASWC isn't contending that the discimination is illegal; it's contending that allowing the army violates the anti-discrimination clause in the ASWC constitution.