8 comments  

Last Thursday, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Iwo Jima with the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, and signed an agreement to bring NROTC (Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps) back to Columbia after an almost 40 year ban.  President Bollinger’s formalization of an on-campus relationship with the Navy was enabled by a University Senate vote lifting the on-campus ban on ROTC and authorizing the President to explore the expansion of ROTC at Columbia.

The University Senate’s consideration of ROTC this year was mired in controversy, not merely due to the controversial nature of further militarization of Columbia’s campus, but also on account of the irregularities in process itself.  The Ad Hoc Senate Committee set up to explore lifting the ban was led by faculty and students who strongly supported bringing ROTC back to campus, and outside advocacy organizations played a role in the strategies and tactics of the Committee, likely violating Senate rules.  More on this here.

At a minimum, Columbia should have waited to enter into a new agreement with the Navy until after DADT had been fully repealed and the military had agreed to adopt non-discrimination policies that conform to those adopted by Columbia University, including protections against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

President Bollinger’s remarks on the deck of the Iwo Jima last week were a disappointment for several reasons, but perhaps most notably for the fact that he said the following:

The civilian and military leaders of our armed forces took a courageous role in ending the policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which made it impossible for universities to fulfill our own personal commitment to equal rights and equal opportunity.  This was a great step forward for America’s ongoing journey in fulfilling its highest ideals—providing equal rights for all citizens.

He should know better – he’s a lawyer, after all.  The DADT policy has not been repealed, nor is the federal government even close to doing so.  Indeed, according to the law passed by Congress, DADT will continue to be in effect until the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense are able to notify Congress that the implementation of training is completed to their satisfaction.  They have not indicated when they will do so.

What is more, the current House version of the National Defense Authorization Act includes provisions that are specifically intended to obstruct the intended complete repeal of DADT.  The Pentagon has also insisted, and the White House agreed, that the DoD and respective services will not include sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes under the general EEO policy.  With respect to Columbia’s relationship with the Navy via NROTC, the DoD would thus not be be in compliance with Columbia’s non-discrimination policies.

I was disappointed to read of President Bollinger’s misstatement of the law and to learn that we have lost an opportunity to use Columbia’s considerable prestige to influence changes in the Pentagon’s on-going discriminatory policies before entering into an agreement to bring NROTC back to campus.

8 comments

  1. It is not inaccurate for Bollinger to have state that. The law repealing DADT has already been passed. It will be repealed, and the expectation within the military is that the repeal will be fully implemented by the end of this calendar year. We have already begun training service members about the changes to rules and regulations that follow.

  2. The latest Navy training may be viewed here: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/71334-training-presentation-slides.html

  3. via@GenderSexLaw Columbia President Signs New Agreement with the Navy and Wrongly Claims DADT Has Been Repealed http://wp.me/ploC4-11j

  4. via @GenderSexLaw Columbia President Signs New Agreement with the Navy and Wrongly Claims DADT Has Been Repealed http://wp.me/ploC4-11j

  5. […] reiterate my earlier dismay at Columbia, and other universities, rush to welcome the military back to a full presence on our […]

  6. It’s also not clear if women members of the U.S. Navy who are not officers are yet allowed to become members of U.S. Navy submarine crews. Before the Columbia Administration decides to commit Columbia, institutionally to a policy of collaborating more closely with the U.S. Navy by training professional Navy and Marine Corps officers on Columbia’s campus for immoral foreign wars (despite the informal poll of Barnard College students which indicated that a majority of Barnard students may not approve of “bringing ROTC back”), there should be an official, binding, university-wide referendum on this issue, in which all Columbia and Barnard-affiliated faculty, students and employees can vote.

  7. Nice site, i have bookmarked it and will be back 🙂

  8. “You have a vastly nice site, satisfactorily constructed and vastly motivating i have bookmarked you confidently you keep relocation new stuff.Fine information, recognition to the”

Add a comment


Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.

FEATURED POSTS

CATEGORY CLOUD

"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.