University Senate Proposed:

Adopted:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE:

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PLENARY MEETING OF MAY 6, 2005

PRESIDENT LEE BOLLINGER: Could I have your attention? I propose to conduct this meeting by moving rather rapidly so that the main issue, on ROTC, is before us and we have sufficient time for debate. Can I have a motion to adopt the agenda?

ANOTHER VOICE: So moved.

SEN. SALLY FINDLEY (NONTEN., PUBLIC HEALTH): No.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Wait a minute. Hold on just a second. There is a motion. Is there a second?

ANOTHER VOICE: Second.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Discussion?

SEN. FINDLEY: With all due respect to the Executive Committee, concerning item 8 [the resolution on ROTC], given the great interest in this and the busyness of many people’s schedules, I would like to propose that you move item 8 up earlier to, say, after the president’s report and the Executive Committee chairman’s report.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Could I just, the sense of the motion is to have full discussion of this, right? I promise you I will do everything I can to get to this right away. Is that acceptable to you? If it’s not, I’ll let you raise the motion again to move it up on the agenda. Okay? Rather than have a discussion now of whether it should be there. Is that all right?

SEN. FINDLEY: I have to leave at 2:30, and I don’t want to be disenfranchised.

BOLLINGER: We’re already taking too much time on this. We’re in a Catch-22 kind of situation here. There’s a second. All in favor say aye.

SENATE: Aye.

BOLLINGER: Passes unanimously. Adoption of the minutes. Can I have a motion please?

ANOTHER VOICE: So moved.

BOLLINGER: Second.

ANOTHER VOICE: Second.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

SENATE: Aye.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Opposed? Passes unanimously. I’m going to forego the president’s report except to thank the Senate for its work this year, and Paul Duby for his work. I think the discussion here today is a sign—it’s all we need—about the importance of this body to the university. That’s all I want to say. Paul?

SEN. PAUL DUBY (TEN., SEAS; CHAIR, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE): Right.

SEN. COILIN PARSONS (STU., GSAS/HUM): Mr. President, can we have questions? Given the brevity of your report and what’s written in the newspapers, I want to ask [inaudible].

PRES. BOLLINGER: Can we come back to this?

SEN. DUBY: Later on. [Cross talk] We’ll have a second part of our report toward the end.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Yeah.

SEN. DUBY: Well, the president already said part of my report, which is to thank the whole Senate. I think we had a very productive year this year. I would like to mention a couple of people. They are, as usual, students who are here only for a relatively short time, and two of them, Nate Walker and Matan Ariel, are going to move on. I want to thank them. It was a great pleasure to serve with them on the Executive Committee. They’ve done a lot of work this year for Student Affairs.

ANOTHER VOICE: Hear, hear! [Applause]

SEN. DUBY: Now sometimes there are also faculty who leave the Senate, and that’s unfortunate, and that’s always a sad, you know, responsibility of me to thank them, and this year Professor Litwak is going to become emeritus in, I think, a few weeks. Now he has been on the Senate for at least a decade. I cannot count more than ten. He has been extremely active on the Faculty Affairs, External Relations, and Executive committees, and he has always been the one who would fight for academic freedom, for fair treatment of the faculty and everybody else in the community, and one of the things, for instance, that I recall from External Relations is the work that he did on trying to get Columbia not to buy material done in sweatshops. So, you know, I’m not going to say farewell to him. I guess I will just say au revoir because we all hope we’ll see him again. The Faculty Affairs Committee is trying to find a way to have him one of our members, maybe the honorary vice chairman or an honorary chairman, and as a non-senator, which is certainly feasible by the by-laws. Thanks. [Applause]

One more thing, Mr. President. Sorry. Because this year was so busy, it has been very difficult for the staff to keep up with us, and of course I want to thank Tom, Justine and Dan. They did a terrific job, and thanks to them you have all of those papers. [Applause]

PRES. BOLLINGER: We need a resolution on summer powers. Do we need it?

ANOTHER VOICE: So moved.

ANOTHER VOICE: Seconded.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Do you need it read?

HOWARD JACOBSON, PARLIAMENTARIAN: I don’t think so. Does everybody know what that means?

SEN. DUBY: We lost it. Sorry.

ANOTHER VOICE: I don’t know what it means.

PRES. BOLLINGER: That’s okay.

MR. JACOBSON: It basically authorizes the Executive Committee during the period over the summer to act if necessary in consultation with the, with who? I’m uncertain.

SEN. DUBY: You don’t consult with anybody.

PRES. BOLLINGER: To perform the functions of the Senate.

MR. JACOBSON: It basically acts for the Senate, but there are limitations upon that. It’s really keeping some part of the Senate structure in operation over the summer months, and anything they do has to be reported back at the first meeting of the new year.

SEN. DUBY: Let me add that we have been very reluctant to use those powers, except that some of the committees, some of the standing committees, will be working during the summer. So we give them, but they will report also in September.

PRES. BOLLINGER: It’s basically to keep the Senate functioning in the months. All in favor say aye.

SENATE: Aye.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Opposed? Passes.

SEN. DUBY: Thank you.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Report of the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investment. Can we have a quick report? Yes, please.

PROF. CHARLES HAILEY (MEMBER, ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INVESTING): One minute?

PRES. BOLLINGER: Yup. That’s great.

PROF. HAILEY: There are copies outside of the agenda that was distributed early in the year and an interim report of the workings of the committee. We’ve evaluated about half of the proposals that we need to go through this year. I point out that so far this year the agreement of the committee with the Trustees has been 100 percent. I should point out that this is an advisory committee. Therefore the decisions reside with the Trustees. However, I think the Senate should look on this agreement as not an example of the committee supinely going along with the Trustees, but rather the fact that the Trustees have considerable respect, I think, for the opinions of the ACSRI committee and therefore are acting accordingly.

We have about 30 or 40 more proposals to review, which we’ll do over another three meetings over the next few weeks.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Thank you very much. [Applause] We’re applauding brevity today. [Laughter] Thank you very much.

Resolution to Establish the Institute of Jewish and Israel Studies.

SEN. LETTY MOSS-SALENTIJN (TEN., SDOS; CHAIR, EDUCATION COMMITTEE): Again I am trying to be very brief. The resolution is before you. It comes moved and seconded by the Education Committee. There is a supporting document explaining the reasons for this particular resolution, and I hope that we can vote on this expeditiously.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Thank you. Do we have a motion? It’s moved. It’s seconded. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.

SENATE: Aye.

PRES. BOLLINGER: All opposed. . . .Letty, you get a hand of applause too. [Applause] Pat Grieve [chair of the Task Force on Sexual Misconduct], the pressure is on. I think that was under ten seconds. So where’s Pat? Okay. So we’ll come back to that if Pat comes. We now go on to Old Business, the Resolution to Establish a Reserve Officer Training Corps Program at Columbia University. The motion, I think everybody has before you? Is that correct? Everybody has the resolution? I won’t read it. Paul Duby will explain how this arrived here on behalf of the Executive Committee, and then Nate Walker and Jim Applegate will open the discussion. Paul?

SEN. DUBY: Yes. Thank you. Most of the last meeting of the Executive Committee was devoted to the discussion and the writing of such a motion, and I think I had mentioned to the Senate before that the Executive Committee will take the responsibility for that resolution. Now the Task Force [on ROTC] had reported before that they were evenly divided, five to five, whether or not to recommend the return of the ROTC. They had a 9 to 0 and 1 abstention, if I recall correctly, on another resolution, but then there was some discussion about the wording. They changed that wording, and they came back with a 6 to 4.

Now the Executive Committee looked at the resolution that they were preparing, and that was a resolution that was indicating that Columbia would approve ROTC on the condition that the policies of the Department of Defense be changed, and that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell [policy] be abolished. Now that was a resolution with an unclear future, in that we were waiting for something that may or may not happen, and we were in fact committing the Senate and the University to some action in the future that probably we would like to discuss again in that situation.

Some people also had mentioned that there might be political and legal consequences of publicizing such a resolution. So we decided that there should be a resolution which is clear, unambiguous, and that people will have the responsibility to vote either for or against. There are, indeed, many situations where a decision like that is difficult, and I’m sure many of us will have a difficult time deciding. But it doesn’t mean that we cannot decide. We have to take our responsibilities, and indeed make a decision, and it’s up to the whole Senate to make that decision at this time.

Let me add again, because that may not have been clear enough, and [because of] what some of the e-mails that were circulated [said], that the Executive Committee did not discuss the merits of that resolution. In other words, we didn’t have a vote whether we’re for or against. Each of us will make his or her own decision.

So if there is any question about the Executive Committee or other aspects of the procedure, I can certainly answer that. Let me add one more thing. There was a possible amendment that has been circulated, and the Executive Committee feels that this is not a friendly amendment. So it will have to be presented to the assembly and voted on if the sponsor wants to move on with it.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Let’s proceed to debate. We need a second probably, don’t we?

SEN. DUBY: Yes.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Do we have a second to the resolution?

ANOTHER VOICE: Second.

PRES. BOLLINGER: You moved the motion. Or the Executive Committee moved the motion?

SEN. DUBY: No, the Executive Committee moves the motion.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Moves the motion. Yes, absolutely. Now, just to clarify. When this issue came up almost two years ago, we in the administration, central administration, took the position that this is something that should arise out of the community itself, and [that it would be] appropriate for the Senate to be the body that organizes the discussion and comes to some kind of conclusion about this. That’s how it got to this particular point. I want to express the gratitude of all of us for the very thoughtful and careful way in which the Senate and the Task Force and the community have gone about this.

I’ve also said that this is something that, if this were to pass, the administration would have to come to an analysis, a judgment and a recommendation as to how this would actually be implemented or whether we would in fact support it, and then it would be taken to the Trustees for final resolution.

Nate and Jim.

SEN. JAMES APPLEGATE (TEN. A&S/NS): Thank you very much. My name is Jim Applegate. I’m a professor of astronomy here, and I am one of the co-chairs of the Task Force on ROTC. I think by now most of you know that I support the return of ROTC to Columbia. Before I start I will say that there are certain advantages to being known as a supporter of the return of ROTC to Columbia. The one that has been most relevant over the last week is that if you look carefully at the rather large amount of e-mail that you have gotten on this issue, you’ll notice that my name has conveniently been removed from that list. So my spam has mostly been about other things, not this issue.

On this issue, nonetheless, I would say that this began about two years ago as a student- authored proposal written by a number of undergraduates, some of whom are ROTC cadets and some of whom have already served in the military and are here after being discharged. I got involved in this about a year ago, and it has undoubtedly been one of—if not the most—interesting things I’ve done in university governance since I came to Columbia twenty years ago.

I support it. The Armed Forces of the United States are an essential, permanent and unique part of our country, and the maintenance of those Armed Forces is the collective responsibility of all Americans. The argument in favor of ROTC is really quite simple. The United States and the world is far better off if the people who run our military, our officers, our leadership, are the best educated that they can possibly be.

Columbia University is a premier educational institution. We educate leaders in many, many fields of human endeavor from law to medicine to science to the humanities and the arts. We stopped educating military leaders over three decades ago when ROTC was kicked off campus during the Vietnam War, in a long-bygone era. It has now come back, and we are considering its return.

I believe the arguments in favor of its return outweigh the arguments in favor of its leaving. The arguments in favor of its return are clear. We need the best-educated leaders we can get, and we are in a unique position to provide those.

The arguments that oppose it largely focus around Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the University’s non-discrimination policy. And here I think the choice is rather clear as well. Do we want to participate or do we want to sit on the sidelines? I should point out right now that none of the ten members of the Task Force, nor any of the hundreds of people who have responded in town hall meetings or e-mails on both sides of the issue, supports Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. All feel that it is bad policy and fundamentally wrong. We are not disagreeing about a moral issue. We are not disagreeing about issues of principle. We are rather disagreeing about strategy and tactics.

Those of us who voted in favor of the return of ROTC feel very simply that the single most powerful agent of change that Columbia can provide on this issue is Columbia-educated leaders for the military. The opponents feel that the most effective thing that Columbia can do is to sit on the sidelines and boycott. I would argue that universities effect change when they are at their best and they do what we do best, and that is to engage the world and teach and educate. We in fact largely make ourselves irrelevant when we decide to shun other people and boycott. Or as someone once put it, If you don’t play the game, you don’t get to make the rules.

In closing I would say that maintenance of our Armed Forces is a collective responsibility of all Americans. We can shun a private contractor, but we cannot shun the Armed Forces. Shunning the Army is a decision that we as a private institution are free to make. It is a decision that the country collectively is not free to make. I believe it is a decision that we should not make, and it is time for us to welcome ROTC back. Thank you. [Applause]

PRES. BOLLINGER: Thank you, Jim. Nate.

SEN. NATHAN WALKER (STU., TC): Good afternoon. My name is Nathan Walker, and it’s been an honor to serve as a co-chair of the ROTC Task Force. Before I begin, I want to add to the official records of this debate the 1000 undersigned signatures from students, faculty and alumni that oppose the immediate return of ROTC. [Applause]. This is in addition to the 600 signatures that were presented at the last meeting, and as you know from the report of the ROTC Task Force, there is also a pro-ROTC petition of 500 signatures that was submitted last year.

Before I begin an analysis of this case, I want to thank each of you individually for your formal and your informal mentorship through the last three years. There have been moments when you’ve come up to me and said, “Nate, you really blew it in that e-mail.” Or, “Yeah, Nate, that’s a good idea, but think about the unintended consequences.” These teachable moments have shaped the way that I think about the task at hand: Should Columbia University immediately reinstate a Reserve Officer Training Corps?

In answering this question, I pulled from a very simple lesson that I have learned as I have served on this body: Nate, find ways to situate ideas against ideas. This will keep you from pitting one person against another person, and allow you to discover not who is right, but what is right. This was the essential principle that has led the Task Force throughout its deliberations to try and find a middle ground, a compromise, and a powerful and unified position. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that we have failed you. The resolution that comes to this body regrettably situates us in an inherently dualistic debate.

I have heard via phone calls and through e-mails that many of you are concerned that if you vote in favor of this resolution, you may be portrayed as being against the University’s non-discrimination policy. I have heard from others who are tired of being called unpatriotic, freeloaders, and elitists for voting against this resolution. In response to these concerns, I’ll make three very simple points.

First, it is not unpatriotic to affirm human rights. [Applause] On the contrary, to deny someone their right to serve in the military, to discharge over 10,000 U.S. citizens because of their identity, is an act of bigotry. Invidious governmental discrimination is the ultimate betrayal of patriotism. It is false to challenge one’s loyalty when making a commitment to human rights, which go beyond boundaries of any nation.

Second, it is unanimous that the military is in desperate need of reform, not simply because of its discriminatory policies, but because of its countless disregard for human decency. I do believe that Columbia graduates will continue to uphold these principles and continue to lead the military and continue to participate in the leadership in this country in all ways that are available to them. Unfortunately, some continue to argue that a vote no on this resolution will mean that you are voting no to our troops. This position pits people against people. Rather, opponents to this resolution know the difference between a citizen soldier and an Ivy graduate who happens to be the nation’s commander in chief.

Third, if our goal is truly to situate ideas against ideas, then the question remains: Is it urgent to immediately reinstate ROTC? To answer this we must examine the merits of the case. As you know, there are two regional ROTC programs that train students from 50 area post-secondary institutions. The New York City Army ROTC program currently enrolls four Columbia students, who are eligible to receive up to $17,000 a year for their Columbia tuition. The Air Force ROTC currently enrolls five Columbia students who are eligible to receive over $30,000 a year. These programs can enroll dozens more Columbia students, and for some reason Columbia students are choosing not to enroll.

As you know, students who are admitted to Columbia are granted need-blind financial aid packages. This means that if they’re not able to pay, then Columbia will grant them institutional aid. Therefore no student—no student—is denied access to the University because of lack of funding. On the contrary, low-income students not only receive institutional aid, but all Columbia students have the choice of signing an advanced contract with the U.S. military through our affiliate programs, but for some reason they’re not.

Furthermore, it is not a hardship for students to take the #2 train and participate in the extracurricular activity which is seven miles from this campus, especially when they are motivated to potentially receive over $120,000 in funding in the next four years. The leaders of these ROTC programs are enthusiastically calling for dozens more Columbia students. Why are they not enlisting? The evidence is also clear that it is more elite of Columbia to have its own private ROTC program when none of the 50 area schools have their own. According to Colonel Bob Ciola of the Air Force ROTC program which is housed at Manhattan College, “The opening of a detachment at Columbia University may necessitate the closure of another and would not allow the optimal use of limited resources. The Air Force is not planning to open,” as he says, “any new detachments except in areas where a large minority population is present and is not currently served.”

Therefore, the immediate reinstatement of ROTC should threaten, could potentially threaten, the financing of regional programs, in turn threatening students in schools who do not benefit from guaranteed need-blind admissions and financial aid.

Finally, it is self-evident that the military’s discriminatory policies violate our commitment to non-discrimination. So what are the unintended consequences of voting in favor of this resolution? A yes vote grants the Department of Defense abstention from our own non-discriminatory policies.

In summary, there is no urgency for the immediate reinstatement of ROTC. There is not a demonstrated need. Only nine students currently participate. These students have ample sources of funding. Columbia, as it is participating in these programs, maintains its commitment to train military leaders. No one is currently being disenfranchised from this very noble profession. My hope is that you will vote on the merits of the evidence and not on the ideology previously presented.

Regardless of the outcome of this vote, I trust that you will continue to situate ideas against ideas, which is a simple way to advance the way that we live and learn together. [Applause]

As a voting member of this body, I move that we have a record vote as articulated in Section 4 of the University Senate By-Laws, that articulates the rules and procedures. This states that if one-third of you who are voting members agree to have a record vote, it will then permit the Senate staff to issue a piece of paper where your name, school and vote will be counted. This is to insure the accuracy and the transparency of this vote. Is there a second to this motion?

PRES. BOLLINGER: So that we have a motion on the floor to make this a record vote. Now record vote is defined in the following way: “By a one-third vote of the members present and voting, a written and signed ballot may be taken on substantive questions. [He then repeats for emphasis: A written and signed ballot may be taken on substantive questions]. Tellers will make an immediate count of the votes and after the result has been announced the secretariat will proceed to register the individual members’ votes for release at the end of the meeting.”

ANOTHER VOICE: So moved.

PRES. BOLLINGER: You with me? That has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Are we ready to vote?

SEN. SUZANNE BAKKEN (TEN., NURSING): I’m just wondering whether or not the staff are prepared for a record vote. I would hate for the vote not to occur today. [The staff member holds up a sheaf of slips of paper for recording the vote; laughter and applause]

PRES. BOLLINGER: Further discussion. [Laughter] Are you ready to vote? It takes one-third for this to pass.

TOM MATHEWSON, SENATE SECRETARY: There are 75 senators present, that I count. So they need twenty-five votes.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay. All in favor of a record vote please raise your hands. [Pause] I hereby declare that there is a third of seventy-five. Twenty-five votes is required . There will be a record vote. [Applause] That’s it. We’re done on that. The floor is now open for discussion. I would ask that any indications of approval or agreement or disagreement not extend beyond a few seconds if possible so that we make sure that we have as full and rich a debate as we possibly can. Yes. Sir.

SEN. MICHAEL ADLER (TEN., BUS.): I want to request permission for a current student to speak. How do I do that?

MR. MATHEWSON: A non-senator.

PRES. BOLLINGER: How do we do that? [Cross talk] For a non-senator to speak, apparently unanimous consent is required.

SEN. ADLER: The gentleman’s name is Scott Stewart.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Let’s have this person [another person, who had walked down the center aisle to the standing microphone] speak first.

MR. MATHEWSON: This is not a senator either.

THE PERSON AT THE STANDING MICROPHONE: I’m not a senator. I’m a student.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay. I’m afraid the debate or the discussion is only open to senators, and does somebody, does a senator have to propose someone or does somebody just walk forward and say—

THE PERSON AT THE STANDING MICROPHONE: I was wondering if I could ask a question.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Hold on, please.

MR. JACOBSON: The Senate’s rules provide that to suspend the rules, which do restrict people who can speak to senators and certain other specified people, like people on a committee or the Task Force, the Senate cannot do so if there is objection, except by a three-fifths vote of all incumbent members.

PRES. BOLLINGER: All incumbent?

MR. JACOBSON: Yes. So basically we could get into that. I mean we have enough people here, I guess, the three-fifths.

PRES. BOLLINGER: I would think we would want—Let me just propose a way so we get into the discussion. I would propose that the Senate—I would guess that the will of the Senate is to restrict the discussion to senators until such point that we may then want to open it up to non-senators who are here. And I’ll leave it to anyone, any senator, to raise that point and then we’ll deal with it then. All right? So at this point we’re limited to senators for discussion. Ready? Sam.

SEN. SAMUEL SILVERSTEIN (TEN., HS): I would like to offer the amendment that Paul Duby indicated. Arthur Karlin and I offer this amendment because we feel that the Senate resolution, the Executive Committee resolution as drafted, essentially does a disservice to many of us. The Senate resolution as drafted requires us to vote for or against returning ROTC to the campus, but omits one of the crucial conditions that we believe should be in that resolution.

I view my role as a faculty member here as one of trying to make opportunities for students, not to remove opportunities from students. And so on that basis ROTC certainly represents an opportunity. On the other hand, I view my role as a member of this community as one of upholding its anti-discrimination regulations and policies, which I view very strongly and positively. And so when those two come into conflict, it seems to me that the anti-discrimination policies trump those of opportunities that any organization might wish to bring.

I am not against the military. I served in the military, and this is not about being pro- or anti-military. This is about what rules we have here at Columbia University that we enforce in terms of anti-discrimination.

Finally, never discussed here are two cases: now one before the Supreme Court and a second likely to come before the Supreme Court. The first is FAIR vs. Rumsfeld and the second, Burt vs. Rumsfeld, which look at the Solomon Amendment and its enforcement of what I consider onerous and, we hope, unconstitutional efforts by the government to force universities to do things they do not want to do. It seems to me it would be a slap in the face of all those who have brought these suits, and who have succeeded in the Third and Second Circuits in finding that the Solomon Amendment does indeed abridge freedom of speech the way the Department of Defense is trying to enforce it. It would be a slap in the face at this point for this university to pass a resolution that accepted ROTC on this campus and under the conditions which we are forced to do so.

And so the amendment is very simple. It simply says that we would add a further clause to the conditions under which ROTC can come back to Columbia, and that clause would be [that] ROTC must provide written agreement to comply in spirit and in practice with Columbia University’s non-discrimination policies with respect to recruitment and retention of Columbia students and staff. You have a copy of that amendment and I believe it was distributed by the secretary to all members of the Senate.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Sam—there’s a second to that? Sam, just a question for clarification for the Senate. Do you intend, as this appears to say, that they only need agree to eliminate Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell with respect to Columbia students and staff?

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: No, well, since this amendment essentially deals with the conditions under which they may return to Columbia University, I don’t think we are in the process of legislating for the world here. I think we’re in the process of legislating for the University per se. And so I would restrict it to Columbia students and staff. That’s what we’re voting on.

PRES. BOLLINGER: So just to be clear for everybody, if the military said, We will agree, we’re going to continue to apply Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell generally, but we agree not to apply it to Columbia—which I recognize is very unusual, very unlikely—but if that were the case, that would comply with this?

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: It also says retention.

PRES. BOLLINGER: No, I understand. I understand.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: So it’s not just recruitment, but it’s retention. It seems to me that that makes the military on this campus an equal opportunity employer, and I don’t believe I have a vote right now on whether the military should be a worldwide equal opportunity employer.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Thank you, Sam. I just wanted to make sure.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: I’d be glad to answer any other questions while I’m here.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Let’s see if there is a second. Let’s hold on. There is a second. So it’s open for discussion on the amendment.

SEN. ARTHUR KARLIN (TEN., HS): [Mostly inaudible; the point is that the amendment is concerned not so much with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, an administrative measure, as with the underlying discriminatory policy]

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: I thought, let me just be clear on this. I don’t mean to obscure this. I thought what we were saying is that we require any organization that comes to our campus to subscribe to our non-discrimination policy, which is absolutely crisp and well thought out.

SEN. KARLIN: [inaudible].

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: We’re not making any.

PRES. BOLLINGER: All right. Any questions, points of information for Sam? Points of information. Yeah.

SEN. MATAN ARIEL (STU., GS): How is this different from the resolution that was brought forth by the Task Force and rejected by the Executive Committee? Isn’t it saying, in other words, We’ll only accept ROTC if these policies change? I don’t understand the difference.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: There is a clear choice this body has to make.

MR. MATHEWSON: Can you come to the mike, Sam?

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: As worded, the Executive Committee’s resolution, if voted down, requires that we say to ROTC, You’re not welcome here. I don’t have any feelings that ROTC shouldn’t be welcome here. As far as I’m concerned, this is an opportunity for Columbia students. ROTC ought to be welcome on this campus. The military is an essential part of this country, and we need a strong defense. There is no argument with any of that. But the military may not come here and take our non-discrimination policies and turn them upside down. That is a condition that we ought to force the military to refuse to accept. It’s not our business to reject the military. It’s not our business to accept the military. It is our business to say under what conditions the military may be on this campus. And for that reason I offer this amendment. I would be perfectly happy to vote for the resolution once this amendment is included, and in fact then it is up to the military to decide whether they want to come here. The shoe should not be on our foot. It ought to be on the military’s foot. We are essentially welcoming of all those who support the goals of this university, and one of the goals is stated very clearly. We have a policy of non-discrimination, and we shouldn’t back down. [Applause]

SEN. ADLER: As I wrote to Prof. Silverstein last night, I wish that your amendment were possible because I think we would all back it for itself. The trouble is that the amendment is an invitation to the Department of Defense to break current law, and therefore, in my view, probably constitutes provocation of the Secretary of Defense, who is thereafter more likely than less likely to apply the Solomon Amendment provisions to us. And I think that would be undesirable, even though I predict that that will happen this fall when the Solomon Amendment, [according to] the best legal advice that I’ve been able to get, is upheld by the Supreme Court.

I wish that you would withdraw the amendment because it’s a provocation.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: The wisest course for this university to take would be to table this issue. You’re absolutely right because it is a provocation—whichever way this issue is decided here, we are provoking unnecessarily a problem that we don’t need. Whether or not the Supreme Court makes the decision to uphold FAIR v. Rumsfeld or overturns FAIR vs. Rumsfeld, whether or not the Supreme Court decides to uphold Burt vs. Rumsfeld or overturn it, there will be forces that try to rewrite the Solomon Amendment and to create yet further mischief. I have no doubt that that’s true. And therefore the Executive Committee’s wisest course in this whole fracas would have been to table this until these suits are solved, and not single Columbia University out for any particular retribution or action. But the Executive Committee did not choose to do that. I would be perfectly happy to withdraw this amendment and cease fire, if you like, if we tabled this whole issue, waited till FAIR v. Rumsfeld and Burt v. Rumsfeld are finished, and then decide what in the best interests of the University we as a faculty and set of students ought to do.

But that is not the position we find ourselves in today. So if there is a majority here that would like to table this, I would be perfectly happy to step aside—I see that as a very thoughtful, and perhaps the most thoughtful, way of dealing with this issue—and call it a day.

SEN. ROBERT POLLACK (TEN., A&S/NS): Just as a point of information, what are the rules for doing that? What are the rules for tabling an Executive Committee motion?

PRES. BOLLINGER: There can be a motion to table, which is non-debatable, a majority vote. And that’s the end of it.

ANOTHER VOICE: Move tabling the vote.

SEN. POLLACK: Second tabling the vote. [Cross talk]

PRES. BOLLINGER: Hold on just a second before we get—we have a motion on the table and we have an amendment to that motion on the table. And then, so if you have—hold on just a second, don’t get out of control here.

MR. JACOBSON: The original motion is really a resolution that’s been moved. The motion, I think the motion, that’s the issue I don’t know—the motion to amend.

PRES. BOLLINGER: But you can have a motion to table the original one at any point.

MR. JACOBSON: Yes, yes, at any point.

PRES. BOLLINGER: So. . . .

MR. JACOBSON: The original resolution can be tabled at any point.

PRES. BOLLINGER: So this would be a motion to table the resolution. And it would be non-debatable and would simply happen. Okay? So, is there a motion?

SEN. POLLACK: Do we have to record that vote?

PRES. BOLLINGER: No. Record. No. Are tabling votes within the record vote? Howard?

MR. JACOBSON: I don’t believe so. But that’s not—the record vote, I think, is meant for substantive—

ANOTHER VOICE: This is procedural.

PRES. BOLLINGER: That will be the interpretation the chair will give to the clause on record votes. All right? There’s a motion to table?

ANOTHER VOICE: Motion to table what?

PRES. BOLLINGER: The resolution, the original resolution. Unconditionally. Is there a second?

ANOTHER VOICE: Second.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay, now I just—you can have points of information, but it’s not debatable.

ANOTHER VOICE: Just make it clear to people once again what they’re—many people are unclear about—

PRES. BOLLINGER: The motion is to table the original resolution coming from the Executive Committee. That resolution proposes return of ROTC to Columbia. So the motion to table applies to that. It has a second, it is non-debatable, and we’re interpreting this as not requiring a record vote.

ANOTHER VOICE: When are the votes, the Supreme Court?

PRES. BOLLINGER: We don’t know. Probably next—

ANOTHER VOICE: The question is irrelevant to the motion.

ANOTHER VOICE: It’s not irrelevant to the tabling motion at all because the tabling motion was made in respect to—

PRES. BOLLINGER: It would be sometime in the next academic year.

SEN. ADLER: Is there a time limit? Is it indefinite?

PRES. BOLLINGER: I think the tabling simply puts it on the shelf of the Senate’s agenda, and it can be brought back at any point in time.

SEN. ADLER: By whom?

PRES. BOLLINGER: By any senator moving to take it off the table.

MR. JACOBSON: Right, and then there would be a vote at that point. So it’s the sense that the Senate will not debate and consider the issue now.

ANOTHER VOICE: So let’s vote.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Any other points of information? I want to make sure people understand. Only senators. Senator.

ANOTHER VOICE: It’s just a question. If during the summer recess, this would not fall under the ongoing—? [Laughter]

PRES. BOLLINGER: You can count on that one. [Laughter] When you come back in September, you will not find a vote has been taken.

Make sure it’s not debate.

SEN. ADLER: [Pauses; laughter] No, I’m going to simply say that as a representative of the people who sponsored the resolution, it is probably the case that we take it as in the interest of the University that we table for now.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay. That’s terrific. Thank you. All right. Are you ready? All in favor raise your hands. [Pause while hands are being counted] All opposed to tabling. [Pause while hands are being counted] Abstentions?

MR. MATHEWSON: Please raise them high. Are you abstaining?

PRES. BOLLINGER: The motion to table fails. [Applause] The votes on the motion to table are 29 for, 36 against, and 3 abstentions. We are back to the amendment to the resolution. The amendment is before you. It is open for further discussion.

SENATE STAFF: Identify yourself?

SEN. REBECCA BALDWIN (STU., NURSING): My name is Rebecca Baldwin. I’m from the School of Nursing. I’d like to speak in favor of the amendment. In evaluating this question, I went back and forth a lot about my personal feelings about the military, my personal feelings about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I kept coming to the reality that I was not simply voting on a personal level, I was voting as a representative of the University, the institution as a whole. And so, well, individuals have the opportunity to participate in ROTC and make their personal decision about whether or not they can live comfortably with existing military policies; we as an institution have a different decision to make. Do we as an institution work to make a marriage with another institution that has a diametrically opposed policy? And that to me is as simple as it gets. It’s not about whether or not I believe in individual rights. It’s not about whether or not the military should function the way it functions. It’s about what does our institution do in conjunction with another institution. And unless we can find a way to make a marriage between those two institutions, we can’t make one.

I feel that this proposal for an amendment made by Professors Silverstein and Karlin addresses that question. I would be surprised if the military would sign on the dotted line to that statement, but that’s their problem. What we will do is say, Come here under our circumstances. Come to my house, follow my rules, and until you do, go away. If they’re willing to come to our house and follow our rules, I’ll open my doors. This amendment makes it possible. Thank you. [Applause]

SEN. JOHN BRUST (TEN., HS): I have another question for Professor Duby.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Paul, you have a question.

SEN. DUBY: Oh, I’m sorry.

SEN. BRUST: You used the rather vague phrase “legal implications” as the reason why the Executive Committee did not itself include something like the Silverstein-Karlin amendment. And were you thinking in terms of these two court cases or were you thinking in terms of something else?

SEN. DUBY: Well, I guess the court case at least was on some of [our] minds. I cannot speak for everybody about that. But the main thing is that we wanted a clear and unambiguous vote, and that vote—of course we don’t expect the Army to sign anything; we don’t expect the Army to accept those conditions. We expect that the Army may be willing to accept some of the academic conditions because that’s what they have done at other places like Princeton, Penn, MIT, and I’m sure that those schools also have non-discriminatory policies.

Now another point that was made is the one that was made just a few minutes ago, that there may be some retribution if indeed the Solomon Amendment is upheld, because it would be kind of a red flag to the Army and the Department of Defense. Those were the two aspects.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay. Let me get some different—Jim.

SEN. JAMES NEAL (ADMIN.): Could you please read the amendment?

PRES. BOLLINGER: “ROTC must provide written agreement to comply in spirit and in practice with Columbia University’s non-discrimination policies with respect to recruitment and retention of Columbia students and staff.”

SEN. NEAL: May I ask a question about the resolution? Does that by definition mean that a graduate of Columbia who goes on to work in the military would then be subject to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and then could be put out of the military?

PRES. BOLLINGER: I think the purpose of the amendment is to insist upon an agreement from the government that any Columbia student who is taken into ROTC at any point in time cannot be discriminated against on the basis of something that would violate our non-discrimination policies. Sam, is that correct?

SEN. NEAL: While they are students and while they are in the military.

PRES. BOLLINGER: That’s what I think I understand the amendment to mean, and Sam agrees. Yes.

SCOTT OLSTER (NONSEN., STU., GS; TASK FORCE MEMBER): My name is Scott Olster and I’m a member of the ROTC Task Force. I feel that, while I understand the sentiment expressed in this amendment, the problem with it is, we as an institution need to ask ourselves responsibly whether it is socially responsible to invest in an organization that has a policy that is inconsistent with our anti-discrimination policy. As much as this amendment will potentially solve the issue within the confines of our own community, I feel it is inconsistent with the ideals of this university as a public institution, not necessarily public in the sense of [a state institution], but public institution in the sense that it is responsible to our community. So it would be inconsistent with our charge to accept an amendment like this because you cannot control [inaudible] in the same way. While I truly feel for this amendment, it would not be appropriate for the Senate to accept it because we have this responsibility. It is the responsibility of the University Senate today to make a decision about the ROTC as it stands, and make a decision about our relationship with the ROTC and its current policy and our policies. So I ask the Senate to take those particular issues into account. [Applause]

SEN. POLLACK: I support Sam and Arthur’s amendment on the point of retribution. I support it because it seems to me we have no authority over the federal government. We are its servant and we are its beggar in terms of our funding, but we have control over our own ability to exert retribution on our own people, and to accept the resolution would be to invite retribution on some of our students and staff, and I cannot as a citizen of this place support that.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DAVIS (ADMIN. STF., HEALTH SCIENCES): I had thought that all the Executive Committee’s resolution really amounted to was allowing ROTC an exemption from the University’s non-discrimination policy. That’s what it’s about. This organization, it’s OK to have it on the University campus, and it doesn’t have to follow our policies, and I don’t like that at all, and so I support that amendment completely.

SEN. RALPH HOLLOWAY (TEN., A&S/SS): What would be some of the retribution?

END SIDE ONE, TAPE ONE; BEGIN SIDE TWO, TAPE ONE

SEN. POLLACK: . . .—openly gay cannot have access to this privilege. [Cross talk]

SEN. HOLLOWAY: I’m talking about the retribution against the University. That’s what I would like to hear about.

PRES. BOLLINGER: I think the question is, To what extent will the resolution, if rejected by the Senate lead to “retribution against the University”? Is that the question?

SEN. HOLLOWAY: My question is, If we accept the amendment, as people have already been discussing, [there may be] retribution that would face the University. I am interested in learning what would be some examples of the retribution the University would be facing.

PRES. BOLLINGER: I’m sorry. So just to get, make sure everybody hears the question. What retribution would follow if the amendment is passed? Do you, Sam, do you want to answer this as the. . . .?

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: Well, I think we are in agreement. Why doesn’t my colleague who is for ROTC go ahead? I yield the floor to him.

SEN. ADLER: I believe that the main threat that the federal government has to enforce upon us is the withdrawal of our federal grants. I believe that they made such a threat in connection with the military recruiting at the Law School, and I think they hard-balled that threat and we backed up. And there is military recruiting at the Law School because the threat was made to sound real. I think that could happen again, and I think we’re in their gun sights.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: Can I then add a couple of things? The Solomon Amendment, as amended repeatedly by the Congress, is an extremely onerous amendment. It says that the Secretary of Defense in his discretion can withhold funding from all parts of a university, all parts, if any one part of that university decides not to comply with the access of the military to campus. Now the law schools of this country, especially Yale, which is the plaintiff in Burt, and a consortium of law schools, who are the plaintiffs in FAIR, have said that that compels speech which they do not agree with. The Second and Third Circuits have agreed with plaintiffs in these cases, and the Third Circuit [case] has gone through the Appellate Division, and that’s the case now before the Supreme Court. In the Second Circuit it’s still pending appeal, but it’s very likely. The Second Circuit applies to New York. Let me just say one more thing. The law schools have therefore suspended—suspended—their non-discrimination policies, but not abrogated them, and the Association of American Law Schools has things that the law schools must do every year to show that they are still supporting non-discrimination during this period when they suspend because these cases are in the court.

So make no mistake about it. The vote against tabling that you just made is the single thing that raises the greatest red flag. Because no matter how we vote on this, whether we vote for my amendment and turn this into a positive resolution, or vote down—as I can see the sentiment in the room—the Executive Committee’s amendment, we have created a red flag for the Department of Defense. But there is no question that there will be further analysis of the Solomon Amendment and that federal funding, that’s the retribution, and that’s what we risk, and that’s why the Law School currently is operating under suspension of its rules. But the University has, I believe—isn’t this correct, President Bollinger?—the University has said that the military may have access to student lists, may have access to many other things, but they do not have access to the facilities and services so long as they do not sign the non-discrimination clause. Is that not correct?

PRES. BOLLINGER: More or less that had been the position until the Defense Department threatened to apply the full force of the Solomon Amendment against the University and proceed to withdraw all funding—Health Sciences as well, the Medical School as well.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: The primary position that we have taken is that the military has access to our—

PRES. BOLLINGER: It has complete—as far as I understand it, the Law School has given now complete access to the placement facilities and placement office while this is pending.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: And is that true for every…?

PRES. BOLLINGER: It is true, yeah, across the institution. And the only—there’s a very complicated area of course, but it’s really faculty at Yale and faculty at a few other schools that have brought this to challenge. The actual universities have not done that. Now, let’s keep this conversation going. Nate, I’m going to put—no.

SEN. WALKER: It’s right on this point.

PRES. BOLLINGER: OK, then go very quickly.

SEN. WALKER: The Task Force agreed with you, and the resolution we put forward was that ROTC should return if—the exact language was “in the event that” the military no longer discriminates.

PRES. BOLLINGER: OK.

SEN. WALKER: There are quick problems with that. One is, you’re proposing a boycott of the military, because we know that they’re not going to do that, and so therefore it’s a boycott of it. And two, you commit future generations to bringing back the military without future generations being able to analyze it on their own terms. And three, it’s a hypothetical discussion which places the power on the military and not on our community. And for that reason it is unanimous that the Task Force proposed two alternatives. It’s unanimous that we believe that we should adopt MIT’s policy, which is a contingency fund, meaning it will protect any student who is discriminated [against] by Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, who’s victimized by that policy. And it will ensure that they don’t have to return the funds to the Department of Defense. Columbia will do it on their benefit.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: I believe that that’s already part of the Executive Committee resolution.

SEN. WALKER: It has not been discussed. It’s nowhere in the minutes here. And I would recommend that rather than committing future generations, rather than boycotting, or making the military say, Oh, you’re not in favor of this; well, we have to do it now—it would help other conditions. We may want to consider an alternative amendment. And that is, let’s create this contingency fund right now as a different resolution, not as a part of this, and let’s do that regardless of whether or not it returns.

And two, let’s strengthen the current program so more students can participate, achieving their goal and not putting future generations to something. This vote today is a snapshot of this body on May 6, 2005, not for what-if, what-if, what-ifs.

PRES. BOLLINGER: OK.

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: Can I just understand? I think it’s important that everyone understand. I believe we received information that says that the University will make whole any student, that if this resolution passed, the University would make whole any student who was discharged from ROTC. Is that correct?

ANOTHER VOICE: It’s not in the resolution.

PRES. BOLLINGER: It’s not. We still have to sort that out. This is part of the multiple issues that would have to be taken up by the University if this were to pass—that is, the original resolution—if this were to pass the Senate. There’d be lots of questions about where would ROTC be located, what would be the budgetary costs of this, how would we protect students in the event that there were dismissals or mistreatment? Those are things that are all yet to be worked out. Sharyn, did you want—?

SEN. SHARYN O’HALLORAN (TEN., A&S/SS): In Executive Committee deliberations we were very clear that those would be taken up whether it’s passed or not.

PRES. BOLLINGER: That’s right. That’s right.

SEN. O’HALLORAN: Whether it’s passed or not, that those issues would be taken up.

PRES. BOLLINGER: That’s correct.

SEN. O’HALLORAN: We don’t know the budgetary implications. We weren’t clear on that. But that, plus strengthening the program as it is, whether that be a shuttle bus or what have you, those are the issues that the administration did agree to. As that was in the proposal, therefore it was not necessary to put it into this particular—

PRES. BOLLINGER: Agree to take up and be serious about. Yeah. Right. I’m very nervous about appearing to make promises, but that’s right. We’ve got to keep the discussion going.

SEN. O’HALLORAN: But they are in the minutes.

SEN. DUBY: Right, they are in the minutes.

SEN. PARSONS: [Hard to hear: Has there been discussion of the role of ROTC in the Solomon Amendment?]

PRES. BOLLINGER: This is one of the questions that has been on my mind. There may be someone here who can analyze this. We do not know how the Supreme Court would rule obviously, but there are many, many different ways in which they could deal with this. I mean, they could interpret the statute and say it’s been misinterpreted from the lower courts. They could say it’s a violation of the First Amendment, but what’s a violation is taking away $300 million a year rather than $10 million or $20 million a year—that the penalty being paid is out of proportion to the—Or they could say that sexual orientation is a fundamental right within the Constitution and the government cannot do anything to interfere with that and therefore this is a complete violation. There are any number of angles that they could take on it that could have an impact on this or not have an impact on it.

SEN. PARSONS: But has there been discussion of ROTC—besides here—in the context of the Solomon Amendment?

PRES. BOLLINGER: Good question. I don’t know of any. [Cross talk]

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: The Solomon Amendment specifically mentions ROTC.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Does it?

SEN. SILVERSTEIN: The Department of Defense has not chosen that path to enforce it at universities, but the first part of the Solomon Amendment is indeed ROTC. So it’s right up there.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay.

SEN. POLLACK: My request is to consider remanding this to the Executive Committee until you can give the Executive Committee the information it needs to tell us the likelihood of us being able to strengthen this program, etc., etc. It seems to me, I’d like to recommend tabling on the grounds of the vast amount of unknown information that we’re voting [on], and to ask you to find out. Can we find that out before we vote?

SEN. EUGENE GALANTER: Second the tabling. There’s too much information going around here that’s not—

PRES. BOLLINGER: No. I understand. What is the rule for multiple tabling?

MR. JACOBSON: I don’t know. It seems to be on a different basis.

PRES. BOLLINGER: I’m going to assume—do you want to make this a motion to table, Bob?

SEN. POLLACK: Yes.

PRES. BOLLINGER: I’m going to rule that this is a motion to table for a different reason or set of reasons than the earlier motion to table, and therefore it is a valid motion. There is a second to the motion. It is non-debatable. This is to table the original resolution. We just have points of information.

SEN. APPLEGATE: It’s being tabled for how long?

PRES. BOLLINGER: It’s being tabled for as long as it’s not—until it’s taken off the table.

SEN. O’HALLORAN: Is there not a difference between remanding and tabling?

PRES. BOLLINGER: But the motion was made to table. Is there such a thing?

MR. JACOBSON: There is such a thing as tabling until a specific event takes place. I thought I heard Bob [Pollack] make a distinction on that.

PRES. BOLLINGER: He said more than that.

SEN. POLLACK: [inaudible] interpretation. If he will accept this as a tabling motion, I’ll change my request.

PRES. BOLLINGER: I’m sorry, Bob.

SEN. POLLACK: If you’ll call it tabling, so will I.

PRES. BOLLINGER: Okay. I call it tabling, and I take it that the tabling, the rationale for this motion to table is not the litigation involving the Solomon Amendment and the First Amendment. It is to develop more information relevant to a return of ROTC and its implications and further information about protections for students not in—if we don’t have ROTC. It’s the whole package.

SEN. GALANTER: What are the implications for the administration, etc.

PRES. BOLLINGER: We got a rough sense of this?

ANOTHER VOICE: It is the original resolution.

PRES. BOLLINGER: It is the original resolution. If this is done, we all walk out of here. [Laughter]

Only points of information. It’s not debatable.

SEN. DAVIS: Is there any likelihood that the Trustees and administration would act on this while it’s on the table? Any likelihood at all?

PRES. BOLLINGER: There is no l