Transgender group considers legal action against ROTC decision
In the wake of President Bollinger’s announcement yesterday that Columbia will officially recognize Navy ROTC, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund is considering legal action against the University, according to a student group.
Together Columbia, which seeks to represent the interests of transgender students and faculty, asked community members to get involved in a message sent via Facebook:
Hello everyone,
As you know, the ROTC is officially returning to Columbia University. A student in GS has reached out to Michael Silverman [of the] Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, and they are exploring a possible lawsuit to force Columbia to enforce its stated non-discrimination policy that protects transgender students.
If you are interested in being more involved in the legal case, including outreach and other advocacy efforts, please contact us at togethercolumbia@gmail.com. They especially need as many transgender students as possible to contact them, so we will pass along your information, as well as keep you in the loop about future meetings and efforts. Please spread the word.
Thank you
Together Columbia
Check back soon for updates.
Omg shut up give it up already
What? Can someone explain how the non-discrimination policy make sense? How is discriminating against an entire program because of its discriminatory policy make sense? How is isolating oneself from a discriminatory program helping anyone? Shouldn’t they advocate for the ROTC to accept transgender students, exploiting the fact that ROTC is returning to campus, instead of not accepting ROTC at all?
I think they’re saying that because the military discriminates against transgenders, and because they view Columbia allowing ROTC as a Columbia endorsement, than the logical conclusion is that Columbia is supporting discrimination.
Little bit of a logical leap to say the least..
certainly the logic skips those who don’t have to face discrimination on a daily basis, if you ask me.
evaluate barnards admissions policies w/ regards to trans people before setting our sides on ROTC? maybe?
Honestly, THIS is the biggest issue with their argument. Let’s start talking about discrimination within our OWN policies, rather than discrimination within the policies of a separate institution (the military).
i got some email notification about this like via some facebook thing… but it is from a GS alum, not even a current student.
somebody needs to get a life!
what possible legal basis could they have for a lawsuit? I could understand if Columbia were forcing students to participate in ROTC, but since it’s voluntary, I don’t know exactly what legal action they are hoping to take.
clowns.
pansies.
whiny pansies. every one of em.
To argue breach of contract or something silly like that. Impossible to argue, since the non-disc policy provides explicit “outs” (eg. The educational mission) and makes no explicit or implied contract with the student.
ABSOLUTELY DESPICABLE! I’ve never been so annoyed by an article that I’ve actually posted a comment, but this is nauseating. The military men and women that ROTC produces are the ones defending this country so that YOU transgenders can even BE transgenders. I’d like to see you spend time in most of the other countries in the world; you’d be severely ostracized if not killed for your orientation. If I were you, I’d be THANKING any one who serves in the military because they’re the ones upholding your rights! So ungrateful…
I think you’re putting a lot of words in the military’s mouths. You can’t say that they’re fighting other people in the name of being champions of transgender rights. Hell, we’re still the state where backwards neighborhoods oust and bully kids for these sorts of things. To say what you’re saying is to ignore the double consciousness transgenders are forced to go through in our nation today. Not that I necessarily agree with the whole lawsuit against Columbia, but your words are going too far.
Who are you to say what the military fights for or doesn’t fight for? The military is fighting to preserve ALL Americans’ rights, regardless of what they are. They don’t go out and say, “Ooh, I think I’ll fight for freedom of press today,” or “Today I’ll fight for public education,” or better yet, “Uh oh, can’t fight today, because I don’t support transgenders!”
I don’t pretend that each soldier agrees with every policy he/she is defending (in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if most were opposed to transgender rights), but they are nevertheless defending them. And a court case to try and prevent Columbia from producing some of these remarkable men and women is absolutely appalling and foolish. Again, I would like to see one transgender go out, reveal they are a transgender, and spend a day in a less tolerant country. Then maybe they would appreciate what they have in America and respect those who preserve these rights.
you’re so deluded with thinking the military is so self-righteous that you’re idolizing them at the expense of realizing that they’re not fighting for ALL Americans’ rights – that’s a huge sweeping statement. They’re fighting because America deemed that it was necessary to invade another country whose democratic or non-democratic status will barely have any effect on the rights that Americans have here.
Please think before you speak. Also, don’t ever dare say again “I would like to see one transgender go out, reveal they are a transgender, and spend a day in a less tolerant country.” Last time I remember, Iraq was a fluke and Afghanistan’s not brilliant either because of us.
Also, comparisons get us nowhere. Yes, gays in America would probably be killed in the spot in less tolerant countries – but that doesn’t it make the U.S. any better by comparison. In fact, considering we had a constitution in 1776 that said “All men are created equal” as well as several gender-related movements last century, you’d think we’d be allowing gays to marry and transgenders to serve in the military. It’s not that transgendered people dont’ appreciate the military – it’s that they’re not allowed to be in it PERIOD, and that in itself is, by principle, intolerant and perpetuates inequality. If the military were open to transgenders, by all means, I’m sure transgendered people wouldn’t have this problem with them.
wow…
im so sick of “YOU ignorants” (as in, i’m going to turn an adjective that describes you into a plural noun because it is clearly your only defining characteristic, all others = irrelevent)
it’s not like any transgender people are going to be joining the rotc anyway…
to make that assumption/sweeping generalization, because you’re only being ignorant.
Also, EVEN IF there were no transgenders AT ALL that wanted to join the military – which I don’t think would ever be the case – there’s still the principle of not letting them in which in itself perpetuates the anti-transgender mentality that’s relatively prevalent not only in the military but in the U.S. – sometimes, the very laws we grow up with shape the way we think about others.
And who’s to say that in the future, transgenders won’t want to join in larger quantities? By preventing them from joining, we are preventing future people from honoring their country in the way they wish to honor it simply because they think of themselves as opposite sex or wish to be.
this was the only anti-rotc argument that i ever really found convincing. i wish them luck, though i won’t be terribly disappointed if they lose their case.
I wonder if this isn’t just an opportunity for this group to attract notoriety. The ROTC proponents haven’t even bothered about them, and I doubt they will. Why should they? On the other hand, I wonder if this notoriety won’t backfire.
Isn’t the term transgender fuzzy/complex enough that it would be pretty darn hard to pin it on someone and kick them out of something for it? We’re talking about an organization in which everybody wears a uniform, follows a strictly uniform code of conduct and behavior, and certainly encourages women at least to bend gender norms all the time. I know there is a difference between the term transvestite and transgender, but how many other ways does being transgender really come out that wouldn’t be a) nullified by military standards anyway or b) able to be confined to one’s personal life?
Is the problem that someone could not join identifying as a man if he has female genitalia or vice versa? Isn’t this still rather easy to get around? I can’t imagine any forum in which the military is going to be asking you about your gender rather than your sex . . . if if the biological facts are that you are of female or male sex who cares what else you do. If someone’s joining the army I would hope they would be more interested in helping with the overall shared mission of protecting our country and whatnot rather than making any kind of statement about gender norms or any other ideology.
It just seems like such a rare case in which someone who cared equally about their transgender-ness and their military convictions wouldn’t be able to find a way to make it work.
Also, the military discriminates against all kinds of medical and physical conditions, too. And I think most people would agree that’s by necessity. Just like I would like a firefighting professional to be able to get an unconscious me out of a burning building without dragging me, I would like the soldiers fighting for the existence of this country I quite enjoy living in to actually stand a chance of surviving and accomplishing these efforts. I feel like a lot of these arguments are ignoring the purpose of the military, which is something a lot of us don’t like to think about. But war is a reality. Hate is a reality. Technology to turn hate (irrelevant of whose historical/political/religious fault it is) into death and destruction — quite possibly your personal death and destruction — is a reality. This necessitates a military and one that will be as effective as possible. This wouldn’t be necessary in an ideal world, that’s for sure, but getting rid of or underfunding or wishing ill against the military is unfortunately going to have no effect on the inescapable facts the armed forces exists to fight. That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with how we use our military in every single instance, but it does mean that your ideals and theories are pretty much irrelevant in the question of your safety and freedom.
Say it, my friend.
There are several things I want to point out in what you just said.
1. “Encourages women to bend gender norms.” I see where you’re coming from but then you’re also forgetting the extensive discrimination that women often undergo in the military – there was even a big article about this in the New York Times in recent years. Oftentimes, they’re called “dykes” if they seem “tough” and if they bend the very gender norms you say they’re encouraged to bend. If they seem too feminine, they’re also discriminated. It’s a double-edged sword.
2. The word transgender may be a bit fuzzy. But people could also say that being gay was something fuzzy and difficult to pin on – think of it, there were SO many closeted people in the military who were discovered and then kicked out before DADT was repealed. This could very easily happen with transgenders too – they’re “in the closet” about being transgender, and then one diary entry that falls into the wrong hands or one e-mail or phone call that is intercepted, and this information could be easily revealed.
Moreover, if you were transgender, you’d probably want to go into the bathroom of what was technically the “opposite sex” because you felt more comfortable there, and you’d want to be in the quarters of the opposite sex too.
3. Being transgender is not about making a statement about gender norms/ideology. It’s just a way of being for people, the way they were born.
4. Yes, some transgendered people might be able to make it work if they did want to go into the military, but the fact remains that it’d still be curtailing people’s rights. Individuals should have the right to be open about who they are, whether they’re gay or transgender, and still be able to serve their country if they wish to. Don’t try
5. How in the world is being transgender like a medical or physical condition? Yes, it’s listed in the DSMIV. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s valid. Remember homosexuality was once in the DSMIV too. I fail to see how being transgender would at all impede someone from saving our country, and I fail to see how anything in your argument backs that up.
6. Your last sentence. But that’s the point – the safety and freedom we are supposedly fighting for out there is in the name of our ideals and theories. How in the world are ideals and theories at all separate from our rationale for invading Iraq or Afghanistan? We could so easily not care about whether or not they’re democratic. You can make the argument that it reinforces terrorists attacking our country if we do not democratize them but that’s a very shoddy argument overall.
7. Lastly, and this is from me – in regards to your last statement again: it is of the utmost hypocrisy if we occupy other countries in the name of freedom, equality, and human rights, and neglect to work on the rights, freedom, and equality of others in our very own nation.
6.
why aren’t they suing Columbia for affiliating with Barnard, which on this issue is every bit as discriminatory as the military. . .
Not trying to turn this into any kind of argument about Barnard v. Columbia on rank or academics or whatever . . . But it is a fact that the Columbia University undergraduate education is available to 600 more women than men.
Anonymous should stop trolling this page. Honestly, you were probably “I think” and the person threatening to sue this school too. And lemme guess, you are head of the LGBQT organization or maybe one of Columbia’s ten or so transgenders?
Not even the head of any LGBQT organization, or even in one, or even suing. I’m just an ally.
But even if I were transgender or the head of an LGBTQ organization, it wouldn’t even change the validity of what I said.
Also, get your lingo straight: a troll is someone who posts irrelevant or incredibly controversial things in a discussion. As it is, I’m on-topic and when other people are saying inflammatory things, like claiming that discriminating transgenders in the military is akin to reasonably barring people based on physical or medical conditions, then I have a full right to reply. Call it inflammatory if you will. I call it responding to BS.
you should think before you assume. “Columbia’s ten or so transgenders?”
1. You can’t assume it’s that small, many times it’s difficult to even tell or many are closeted.
2. It’s perfectly infuriating the way you said it – you are just trying to minimize this problem.
Let me get myself straight: I am not against ROTC at Columbia. I do believe, however, that it is a valid point for people to want ROTC to step into the 21st century and stop barring transgenders from entering.
ROTC doesn’t violate Columbia’s non-discrimination policy.
The policy only protects students from *unlawful* discrimination and discriminatory harassment. Military (personnel) policies are presumed lawful, and available case law supports the military’s transgender policy. A reference point to understand the military’s gender-based policy is Barnard’s gender-based policies, which are also lawfully discriminatory and therefore do not violate Columbia’s non-discrimination policy. Note that anti-discrimination laws for civilian employers do not apply to the military, which is regulated by different statutes and case law.
Whether the military’s transgender policy is ‘moral’ or ‘right’ as a matter of principle or belief is fairly debated, but there is no question that the military’s transgender policy is lawful. On the second prong, ROTC presumably won’t be a zone that allows discriminatory harassment at Columbia. A further mitigation is that a portion of ROTC is normally open to the general student body to serve its interactive and general education function in the university.
Finally, my prior analysis is effectively mooted by Columbia’s non-discrimination policy itself, which contains a superseding provision that nothing in the non-discrimination policy will abridge the University’s educational mission; ROTC is now part of Columbia’s educational mission.
Conclusion: There is no legal cause of action against ROTC and Barnard based on Columbia’s non-discrimination policy and the transgender issue.
It’s always a relief when someone with obvious expertise aswnres. Thanks!
NFxHiK eqhniuyyizxv
Yo5Xw3 aogdzlveljzt