Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/hero_unwelcome_Zi3u1fwtRpo87vXAiAQfSN

Hero's unwelcome
By ANNIE KARNI

Last Updated: 9:06 AM, February 20, 2011

Posted: 12:10 AM, February 20, 2011

Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.

"Racist!" some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.

Maschek, 28, had bravely stepped up to the mike Tuesday at the meeting to issue an impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.

"It doesn't matter how you feel about the war. It doesn't matter how you feel about fighting," said Maschek. "There are bad men out there plotting to kill you."

Several students laughed and jeered the Idaho native, a 10th Mountain Division infantryman who spent two years at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington recovering from grievous wounds.

Maschek, who is studying economics, miraculously survived the insurgent attack in Kirkuk. In the hail of gunfire, he broke both legs and suffered wounds to his abdomen, arm and chest.

He enrolled last August at the Ivy League school, where an increasingly ugly battle is unfolding over the 42-year military ban there.

More than half of the students who spoke at the meeting -- the second of three hearings on the subject -- expressed opposition to ROTC's return. Many of the 200 students in the audience held anti-military placards with slogans such as, "1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault in the military."

The university has created a task force polling 10,000 students on the issue, but would not release the vote tally of the 1,300 who have already responded.

In 2005, when the university last voted to reject ROTC's return, it cited the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

That policy was overturned in December, but resistance remains.

"Transpeople are part of the Columbia community," said senior Sean Udell at the meeting, referring to the military's current ban on transgender soldiers.

Faculty members are divided.

"Universities should not be involved in military activities," Sociology Professor Emeritus Herbert Gans told The Post. "Columbia should come out against spending $300 billion a year on unnecessary wars."

A group of 34 faculty colleagues, including historian Kenneth Jackson and former Bloomberg adviser Esther Fuchs, plan to announce their support of ROTC tomorrow.

José Robledo, 30, a Columbia student who commutes to Fordham University for ROTC coursework, said he found the treatment of Maschek abhorrent.

"The anti-ROTC side has been disrespectful and loud. They hiss and they jeer," he said. "It's been to the detriment of the argument."

akarni@nypost.com

Despicable. People more than have the right to criticize the war and the military and it's policies. Those who levy personal attacks on a decorated veteran are nothing but cowards, and don;t deserve the chance for education that this man has fought to protect. As much as I wish these scum would get theirs, I know that this hero will be the bigger man and soldier on.

As for the ROTC issue, I have nothing to say, other than that I hope both sides can find an amicable solution.

Yeah, pretty crappy thing to do.

They may not agree with the war, or the reasons for the war, but they have no right whatsoever to heckle & insult a guy who was just doing his job, and got badly injured doing it.

I'm sure these morons would defend their actions with the cry of 'freedom of speech', while conveniently forgetting that it's guys like him that make sure they have that freedom in the first place.

Yeah, that's crossing the line.

Some what fitting for this discussion.

A Few Good Men;
Jessep: "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom! You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall! You need me on that wall! We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline! I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "Thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

Isn't it possible that they were jeering what he was saying? the story doesn't really give a good description of the event, and I don't think anybody is shocked that rich college kids acted churlish. But I'm not sure they were mocking him for being a veteran, but rather his arguments for why ROTC woudl be great at Columbia.

If it was just abuse heaped on the guy for what he did, than yeah, that's pretty rough.

I mean, I'd be interested to see how a Planned Parenthood advocate would be treated at a sharply right wing school in the deep south (if they were allowed to speak). Hostile audiences are called that for a reason.

Ironic that what is considered one of the finest higher leraning institutions in America also has some of the most classless unsophisticated people in the nation...

chaos0xomega wrote:Ironic that what is considered one of the finest higher leraning institutions in America also has some of the most classless unsophisticated people in the nation...

Life in private colleges is pretty insular. I'm not going to defend their actions, but the reintroduction of ROTC is a hot button issue there, and when you're in college small matters like that can become pretty all consuming.

It certainly shows a pretty crippling lack of perspective, and yeah, no small lack of class, but when you have thousands of highly motivated people that want to do big things, and nothing for them to do, some of them really leap onto stupid causes like this.

You also have 7000 undergrads at columbia, so the idea that maybe a few dozen are douches isn't monumentally out of proportion.

Polonius wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Ironic that what is considered one of the finest higher leraning institutions in America also has some of the most classless unsophisticated people in the nation...

Life in private colleges is pretty insular. I'm not going to defend their actions, but the reintroduction of ROTC is a hot button issue there, and when you're in college small matters like that can become pretty all consuming.

It certainly shows a pretty crippling lack of perspective, and yeah, no small lack of class, but when you have thousands of highly motivated people that want to do big things, and nothing for them to do, some of them really leap onto stupid causes like this.

You also have 7000 undergrads at columbia, so the idea that maybe a few dozen are douches isn't monumentally out of proportion.

In particular since it wasn't a few dozen.

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/02/22/students-surprised-worried-national-media-coverage-rotc

Students surprised, worried by national media coverage on ROTC

Students say many got a bad rap in national media coverage.

By Sammy Roth

Published February 22, 2011

Ayelet Pearl for Spectator

The heckling of an injured war veteran at a town hall event last week has drawn national media attention, to the surprise and discomfort of many involved.

The veteran, Anthony Maschek, GS, was arguing for the return to campus of a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program at the University Senate’s second public forum on the subject.

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting. Other parts of the world are plotting to kill you right now when you go to bed,” Maschek said at the town hall Tuesday night. “It’s not a joke … these people, seriously, are trying to kill you. They hate America, they hate you.”

Some audience members booed. More laughed. A couple of students yelled “racist” as he left the microphone. But many students in attendance said the majority of the room applauded Maschek, who was awarded a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq.

Maschek and others said they are baffled by the framing given the story by media outlets like the New York Post, Fox News, and The Huffington Post and the especially vicious comments that have appeared on those sites.

“Columbia got slammed. Nobody’s happy with it,” military veteran Jose Robledo, GS and a University Senator, said.

Robledo said other senators found a news article about the town hall where some commenters threatened to come to Columbia and shoot students over the reported treatment of Maschek. He said that while this seems unlikely to happen, the senators informed Public Safety of the threats.

“In reality, the students who heckled Anthony … are not representative, not only of the anti-ROTC movement, but of the University,” said Robledo, a supporter of ROTC.

Ron Mazor, CC ’09, Law ’12 and the co-chair of the University Senate’s Task Force on Military Engagement, which is sponsoring the town halls, said that the response to Maschek’s speech was an “outlier.”

“We have a very clear policy on having commenters, speakers and the audience refrain from derogatory language or insulting language,” Mazor said.

Paco Martin del Campo, CC ’11 and a member of Lucha, a student group which is opposed to ROTC, was at the town hall Tuesday night and said he understands why some might have yelled or booed.

He said that Maschek’s remarks implied that Iraq has attacked the United States, and that Iraqis are thus among the people who want to kill Americans. But since Iraq did not attack the U.S. on September 11 or since then, Martin del Campo said, Maschek’s statement seemed to imply that all Muslims want to kill Americans.

“We shouldn’t let the unfortunate incident take away from the actual points that were being made,” Martin del Campo said.

Maschek said during his remarks that he had been shot nine times in Iraq and spent two years recovering in Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In a statement that he sent to the media on Monday night, Maschek said he feels no animosity towards Columbia.

“Comments by a small number of individuals at the town hall meeting have not changed my positive experiences at Columbia,” Maschek wrote. “Thus far, my fellow students have been very interested in hearing about my past life and military experiences. Columbia has been attempting to get more veterans to share their experiences here, and the atmosphere here has been supportive despite the actions of a very small minority of the town hall participants.”

Robledo added he has met with members of Lucha and other opponents of ROTC, and that they are concerned about the negative image of ROTC opponents created by media reports. Robledo noted that he is worried about military veterans being portrayed as “victims of the big bad Columbia machine.”

He added that since the New York Post published its article, “everyone’s on the defensive,” and that this makes it harder to have a serious debate.

Martin del Campo said that the media reaction has been “designed to make it seem like people who oppose the military are unpatriotic.” He added that while he hopes ROTC supporters will “not try to demonize” those opposed to ROTC, that he thinks his side will act a bit differently after all the media attention.

“We’re obviously going to be more aware,” he said. “And at the next town hall, we won’t be disrespecting people.”


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jayce_The_Ace wrote:Yeah, pretty crappy thing to do.

They may not agree with the war, or the reasons for the war, but they have no right whatsoever to heckle & insult a guy who was just doing his job, and got badly injured doing it.

I'm sure these morons would defend their actions with the cry of 'freedom of speech', while conveniently forgetting that it's guys like him that make sure they have that freedom in the first place.

It was following the section of his speech where he stated, “It doesn’t matter how you feel about war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting. Other parts of the world are plotting to kill you right now when you go to bed,” Maschek said at the town hall Tuesday night. “It’s not a joke … these people, seriously, are trying to kill you. They hate America, they hate you.

So, I'm not sure what's more suprising: that college kids did something dumb, or that the media presented a very misleading aspect of a larger story.

Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

Polonius wrote:So, I'm not sure what's more suprising: that college kids did something dumb, or that the media presented a very misleading aspect of a larger story.

Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

What you should be even more surprised by is that a link that Frazz posted tells less then two sides of a story.

I could agree with heckling the policies of the military, but to disparage a wounded soldier gives me a negative vibe. Now, he did speak out for the ROTC at campus, so he shouldn't be suprised that slings and arrows will go his way.

However, to generalize him along with the rest of the military establishment and paint him as someone culpable for the decisions to segregate and prohibit certain segments of the American populace from joining the military is wrong.

Of course, it looked like only a few heckled the soldier turned student, so I cannot lampoon the entire opposition to the ROTC initiative.

WarOne wrote:I could agree with heckling the policies of the military, but to disparage a wounded soldier gives me a negative vibe. Now, he did speak out for the ROTC at campus, so he shouldn't be suprised that slings and allows will go his way.

However, to generalize him along with the rest of the military establishment and paint him as someone culpable for the decisions to segregate and prohibit certain segments of the American populace from joining the military is wrong.

Of course, it looked like only a few heckled the soldier turned student, so I cannot lampoon the entire opposition to the ROTC initiative.

Eloquently put. Although its a despicable act to sully a veteran, especially one who suffered such grievous wounds and was a member of an elite force, it will sadly happen.
We get the same here in the UK, those that speak out see soldiers as an extension of our military policy and use them as a target. A smart protester would get him on side rather then berate.
Pete

Again, he wasn't just speaking on behalf of servicemen: he was reiterating a political view on the need for a strong military. That goes beyond what I would consider speech where a veteran earns inherent respect and becomes advocacy on it's own merits. It's still gauche to mock anybody making an argument, but his comments tied his viewpoint to the greater viewpoint that the War on Terror is necessary due to the threats all around us.

Veterns deserve respect for their service, and when one speaks on the need for equiptment, training, etc. for the betterment of servicemen in the field, I feel that additional respect should be granted. Even arguing that the military requires, but rewards, highly talented people like those at Columbia would be keeping his arguments rooted in his experience.

Polonius wrote:Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

I'd disagree for a moment only to state that when you're the one being shot at, the "wider political view" kinda goes out the window.

I'd say that Mr. Maschek genuinely believes what he is saying, exactly as he says it, literally. The people that were shooting at him do want us all dead, and they hate us.

Actually they would rather us convert and swear fealty to a new caliphate, but barring that, yeah, dead works as well.

efarrer wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, I'm not sure what's more suprising: that college kids did something dumb, or that the media presented a very misleading aspect of a larger story.

Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

What you should be even more surprised by is that a link that Frazz posted tells less then two sides of a story.

Wo wo wo, what do you want a freaking encyclopedia about the meeting? My job is not to educate. My job is make fun of students at Ivy League colleges!

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

I'd disagree for a moment only to state that when you're the one being shot at, the "wider political view" kinda goes out the window.

I'd say that Mr. Maschek genuinely believes what he is saying, exactly as he says it, literally. The people that were shooting at him do want us all dead, and they hate us.

There's a difference between "they wanted me dead" (when he was a soldier in country) and "they want you dead" (when you're student sitting in the US). I'm not saying he was incorrect in his analysis (obviously there are militants that would like to see, and probably are planning, the death of Americans). My point is, his comments read, absent context and only in the truncated form I have access to, as a rehashing of pro-war talking points that are simply anathema to the far left wing audience he's talking to.

It would be like bringing up evolution at a Christian college: even if you have a good point, you've gotta know that it's going to rile people up.

Frazzled wrote:
Wo wo wo, what do you want a freaking encyclopedia about the meeting? My job is not to educate. My job is make fun of students at Ivy League colleges!

No. The truth would have been not bad, but that's not what you seem to be interested in. This, like most of your "news" posts, didn't pass the bs test.

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Wo wo wo, what do you want a freaking encyclopedia about the meeting? My job is not to educate. My job is make fun of students at Ivy League colleges!

No. The truth would have been not bad, but that's not what you seem to be interested in. This, like most of your "news" posts, didn't pass the bs test.

The truth is a three edged sword. Your truth, my truth, and what lies in between.
-Kosh.

Can we have the army invade the school, or at least the national guard?

Put some martial law in place you know, something to make them feel bad physically?

Or we could be safe and protest the school.

I agree with Polonius.

Even if I didn't come from a military family, I'd want to make sure our veterans are honored and respected for their service, particularly those who have suffered wounds and hardship in that service.

That said, the original story does seem to distort the picture. And I don't think it's always off-limits to jeer or disagree with a speaker if he presents an argument with which the audience firmly disagrees or finds incredible. Achmidinnerjacket (who despite being scum is a foreign dignitary) got openly laughed at when he claimed there were no gay people in Iran, and Maschek (even though he's more worthy of honor than Iran's head goon) got jeered at when he made a broad statement about Iraqis or Muslims in general wanting to come over here and kill Americans. That's not an accurate sentiment, and it's not a legitimate support for his position.

efarrer wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, I'm not sure what's more suprising: that college kids did something dumb, or that the media presented a very misleading aspect of a larger story.

Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

What you should be even more surprised by is that a link that Frazz posted tells less then two sides of a story.

It is not the expected standard here that anytime someone posts an article or a link to an article that they have to post more links to give multiple sides of the story. People frequently post a single article for comment and discussion. Posting a link to another, better article giving more perspective is an excellent thing to so. Either for the OP, or (if the OP hasn't seen it or whatever) by anyone else in the thread who wants to contribute and inform people better.

The anti war students at Columbia are pretty douchey and typically ill informed: News at 11

Its not surprising he would get heckled off the stage though, he was advocating for war and peacekeeping in the mideast rather then for recruitment on campus or for moderation in viewing the war. Dude stated what he believed, it was just a bad venue.

Actually he was advocating for ROTC on campus I think. Calling someone a racist is pathetic.

Frazzled wrote:Actually he was advocating for ROTC on campus I think. Calling someone a racist is pathetic.

What he meant to do and what he said are two different things Fraz. He directly advocated involvement in the mideast as a way of advocating for ROTC on campus.

Polonius wrote:So, I'm not sure what's more suprising: that college kids did something dumb, or that the media presented a very misleading aspect of a larger story.

Also, reading the vet's comments, it seems he wasn't just discussing his experience, or even the need for trained officers (which is great), but was advocating a wider political view: that the War on Terror is tied directly to the safety of Americans as a whole. I'm sure his comments were truncated, and his actual point was more nuanced and less a tired rehash, but trying to sell a savvy (and hostile) audience the tired talking points of fear isn't great rhetoric.

My thoughts exactly, it sounds (from the few quotes available) that his argument was no different from the bush era rhetoric that lead to the war in Iraq in the first place.

I agree that the reception that his statement received was inappropriate but IMO his statement was overly simplistic to the point of being childish.

They called him racist.

Frazzled wrote:They called him racist.

Yes, we know.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:
My thoughts exactly, it sounds (from the few quotes available) that his argument was no different from the bush era rhetoric that lead to the war in Iraq in the first place.

I agree that the reception that his statement received was inappropriate but IMO his statement was overly simplistic to the point of being childish.

that's a good way of putting it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They called him racist.

Yes, we know.

I don't know about the people you hang out with, but here thats an invitation to a hospital visit.