Wounded Iraq vet heckled at Columbia University

[darrels joy]

Wounded Iraq vet heckled at Columbia University

posted at 1:36 pm on February 20, 2011 by Bruce McQuain
[ Culture ] printer-friendly

Apparently civility and free speech only apply to one side at Columbia University – the anti-military side. Woe be unto you if you have the temerity to stand up in an open forum as a member of the Columbia University community and voice an opinion in opposition to that which is prevalent there.

A wounded Iraq war veteran found that out recently as he stood up – something he had to learn to do again after his wounds – and gave what the NY Post describes as an “impassioned challenge to fellow students on their perceptions of the military.” It occurred during the second of three meetings the University has scheduled to talk about ROTC and the possibility of bringing it back on campus.

Speaking truth to ignorance, Anthony Maschek said to his fellow students:

“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.”

One student shouted “racist” at the former soldier, awarded the Purple Heart for somehow surviving being shot 11 times .

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.

Opinions of the military like that aren’t unheard of among some members of our colleges and universities. But this is 2011, not 1971 and the vast majority of Americans decided early on in this century that it isn’t at all acceptable anymore.

Behavior like that of Columbia’s anti-military crowd toward Mascheck is rude, crass, childish, and demonstrates a cosseted ignorance that they, for some reason, seem eager to display. It speaks to the fact that differing opinions are not welcome. And civil debate? Why bother with that when you can bravely stand up and call a wounded warrior a “racist” for simply expressing himself in an open forum?

This sort of bratty behavior toward a man who literally bled on their behalf only demonstrates for all the the emptiness of words like “tolerance”, “civility”, “acceptance” and “equality” for the Columbia anti-war students who jeered and laughed at this man. They should be mortally ashamed of themselves.

The incident also demonstrates that there is no real desire to engage and discuss – instead the emotional argument hold’s sway and any who oppose it are shouted down. Their minds are made up and they have no desire to hear dissenting opinions – their preconceived notions based in a totally naive outlook on the world have formed their unchangable opinion about the military. And ROTC.

“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.”

Fair enough. Some are of the opinion that government shouldn’t be involved in subsidizing private colleges. So perhaps the a remedy can be found that is equitable for all. No ROTC on Columbia? Then no federal money for Columbia.


Discuss that.

—
Bruce McQuain blogs at Questions and Observations (QandO), Blackfive, the Washington Examiner and the Green Room.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...ia-university/

[reconeil]

My old: "Crossed butter knives" alma mater as we once jokingly referred to our proud & highly decorated 10th Infantry Division aside, I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for many fine Columbia Graduates, past, present & future.

Those Cowardly Sickos make Columbia seem no better than Berkeley or University of Tehran.

I differently show no sorrow or pity for Brave & Courageous MISTER Maschek, since don't believe any such is needed for Brave Warriors. I'll stick to just pitying Columbia.

After all, anyone whom can handle 11 wounds most certainly should handle a few pathetic Ingrate Collegiate Punks quite easily,...any-day-of-the-week.

Regardless, my salute & GarryOwen to now student Anthony Maschek,...and don't ever let any such worthless as fleas low-lifes get you down. All combined aren't worth one frown.

Neil

[revwardoc]

Mascheck should've reminded his "fellow students" that their 1st Amendment rights are being protected by just the people they are heckling. I'm glad they are students and not soldiers. I sure wouldn't want the likes of their ilk anywhere near me in combat. They'd probably carry white flags in their backpacks instead of extra ammo.

[reconeil]

The only thing I might add to your quite sensibly saying about Maschek's: "Fellow (SICKO) Students" is this. I wouldn't want most: "Likes of their ilk (PROFESSORS) anywhere near me in combat" ALSO,...and in church either.

Still, it's not likely all students were taught to despicably hate U.S. Military and/or SOLE GUARANTORS of all Our Liberties & Freedoms FOUGHT & DIED FOR since 1776,...solely by their parents.

Whereas, it's much more likely that most such Jane Fonda-like perverted minds or sick puppies were taught HATING America & LOVING & FAVORING most everything foreign & alien to USA (both Fanatical Muslim & Sectarian Enemies also),...by their professors.

Regardless, I truly feel sorry for some Columbia students & grads whom never got so-damn-brainwashed against The Greatest & Most Compassionate Nation on Earth, all due mostly to & courtesy of U.S. Military.

All rest of Leftist Duped Students taught by Lefty Duping Professors...MAKE YOU LOOK BAD.
Shame on "Them" & all Student & Professor INGRATES,...& wish all differently honorable, patriotic & compassionate Columbia students, grads & profs the very best of everything & good health.

Neil

[reconeil]

Even though such low class disrespectiful mockings of speakers by any students at any universities are obviously as despicable as it gets,...has anyone heard of any apologies from professors, administrators, hierarchy or any running things at Columbia University?

I haven't heard diddly from any of such America & U.S. Military Ingrates.

Nor,...have any explained why Leftists, Marxists, Radical Muslims or basically enemies of Liberty & Freedom type speakers are QUITE DIFFERENTLY accorded the respect absurdly & blindly given to Terrorist Hamas, Alquida & any such Infidel Mass-Murderers & Low-Lifes?

Are Columbia U & University of Tehran brother or sister schools?

Given so many: "Hanoi Jane" Fonda type student & prof protesters so unconscionably & fanatically echoing each other on campus as if sickest of anti-Americans,...it-sure-as-hell seems so.

Also & just out of curiosity , do Iranian Exchange Students pay local or out-of-state tuitions?

Or, are their Iranian tuitions Totally Free (actually paid for by We U.S. Taxpayer Suckers),...as most everything else DICTATED gifting to foreign nations & nationals (Enemies & Criminally Illegal Aliens or not) by We Americans?

"ONLY IN AMERICA"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hope We Survive both Terrorism & University Helpers??

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war,” Columbia University freshman Anthony Maschek told classmates last week. “It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting. There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”


Maschek knows this too well. In 2008, the Army staff sergeant got shot eleven times in a fight in Kirkuk, Iraq. Before arriving at Columbia last August, Maschek had spent two years rehabilitating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. His road from Idaho to Columbia via Iraq was certainly the one less travelled.


Such a story awes and inspires the rest of America. At Columbia, Maschek got heckled. “Racist!” one student reportedly jeered, while others booed and laughed at the disabled veteran, according to the New York Post.



The wounded warrior’s impromptu speech was part of the second of three campus forums on the possible return of the Reserve Officers Training Corps to Columbia in the wake of the repeal of the congressional ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. At the first forum, like the second, a slight majority of speakers urged the school to continue to keep ROTC out of Morningside Heights. The third forum takes place February 23. The University Senate votes on the matter in April.

---

---

Columbia is hardly the sole hotbed of military bashing. With the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” prohibition on out-of-the-closet gays serving in the armed forces, schools—Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Brown, etc.—that discriminate against ROTC cadets (but not, consequently, against military research grants and contracts) have the face-saving opportunity to welcome back would-be student servicemen. Instead, the disappearance of gays in the military as an issue has prompted ever-more creative rationalizations for continued anti-military discrimination.


“Harvard should promote public service, but supporting the military as a particular form of service is problematic,” sophomore Christian Anderson contended in a debate over ROTC returning to America’s oldest college. “Not everything the military does constitutes public service.” The rebuttal came in response to a College Republican’s seemingly benign remark that including ROTC at Harvard would honor students serving America.


Conrad Honicker, an Emory University freshman, complained in the school paper that the military has “no services in place to update gender, and trans-related health care is systematically denied to transgender service members and veterans…. How can we justify bringing ROTC and military recruiters onto our campus when their values so clearly contradict our affirmation of our transgender friends and peers?”


Alok Vaid-Menon, president of Stanford University’s Students for Queer Liberation, echoed similar concerns regarding the military’s exclusion of the transgendered: “A re-introduction of ROTC on college campuses (including Stanford, Harvard, and Columbia) that include ‘gender identity’ in their non-discrimination clause is a fundamental violation of policy and an endorsement of discrimination.”


Like the Ivy League, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are exclusive institutions. Recruits must pass physical and mental tests. There are size and age restrictions. Moral issues, such as a criminal past or heavy drug use, can disqualify. Elite colleges are similarly particular about who gains entrance. Top students not only understand why such exclusionary measures are necessary for the Ivy League, they take pride in them. Why, then, do they cry “discrimination”—as if it were always a dirty world—at the military for employing selectivity? There have always been people ineligible for military service just as there have always been people ineligible for Columbia, Brown, and Harvard.


The rationalizations—the Vietnam War, the exclusion of gays, transgender rights—have changed. The contempt for the armed services has not.



As is the case at other schools, justifications for keeping ROTC out of Columbia run the gamut. “Transpeople are part of the Columbia community,” remarked one student. A sign–bearer explained via placard:



“1 in 3 female soldiers experiences sexual assault in the military.” “Universities should not be involved in military activities,” Professor Emeritus Herbert Gans told the New York Post. “Columbia should come out against spending $300 billion a year on unnecessary wars.”

One wonders what issues would arise as hurdles for ROTC to overcome should the military address the aforementioned concerns. Ageism? Handicappism? Fatsoism? There are scores of phony reasons for banning ROTC. There is one real reason: academia hates the military.


More than forty years ago, when the activists of the 1960s first succeeded in kicking ROTC off college campuses, the buzzphrase of bad-faith radicals was “the issue is not the issue.” It still isn’t.


Daniel J. Flynn is the author of A Conservative History of the American Left (Crown Forum, 2008), Intellectual Morons (Crown Forum, 2004), and Why the Left Hates America (Prima Forum, 2002). He has appeared on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Sky News, PBS, CSPAN, and other broadcast networks. He writes a Monday column for Human Events and blogs at www.flynnfiles.com.

[reconeil]

"Columbia is hardly the sole hotbed of military bashing" & "Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Brown, etc.-that descriminate against ROTC cadets",...sez-it-all. Matters not what context such taken in.

So then Blue,...let me run this suggestion past you. Always like a second opinion.

A lack of honesty, integrity & character now obvious amongst many in high office here aside, none such should ever be permitted being further Honored as a U.S. President unless first graduated from Annapolis, West Point, VMI ROTC & such, or having Honorably Served in U.S. Military as either an Officer or NCO.

Any previously held offices shouldn't mean diddly-squat.

Whatever,...no system is perfect. Remember national embarassment Jimmy Carter?
How about civilians: "Yaley" war protester Clinton &: slick "H-a-a-vud" community organizer prof Obama??

Besides, any of above suggested would no doubt be much better than what now rules We Americans as if more so a community organizer, union boss or king. Don't you think?

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

It would be nice if, at least, some kind of genuine and honorable prior military service in uniform would be a required qualification, yes.

At least then we'd know that the candidate was minimally able to survive basic training yelling and running around and exhaustion and lack of sleep and policing up.

[reconeil]

How about: "Candidate was minimally able to": destinguish between what is patriotically honorable or treasonably disgusting, being courageously American or cowardly Leftist, displaying Fine Character rather than herdlike promoting Disgusting Zealotry, etc., etc.,....ALSO???

Besides,...shouldn't such obvious sicko American kiddy ingrates, spoiled brats & rude disruptors of free speech actually be praising the U.S. Military INSTEAD?

If weren't for U.S. Military there would be no Freedoms, Liberties, Rights & Free Speech in the first place. Besides, and even though politicos, constitutions, bills, text or volumes of words about such are nice,...all such truly Guarantee Nothing.

Political bull or words alone are about as important as Restraining Orders against some Homicidal Nuts (brainwashed honor-challenged students also).

Solely U.S. Military EVER GUARANTEED all Liberties & Freedoms, and shed blood, sweat & tears for such from the very-gitgo. Unfortunately, Brave Warriors must still do same to this very day.

Sadly, many both here & abroad find Freedom, Liberty & individual thinking quite distasteful.
Same many obviously prefer 1 party, 1 clique, 1 ideology or 1 religion RULE, here in America.

Yes, muh-Friend. DAV is 100% correct on their T-shirts & all other worthwhile stuff helping Disabled American Veterans. "FREEDOM IS NOT FREE".

Neil

[BLUEHAWK]

"If weren't for U.S. Military there would be no Freedoms, Liberties, Rights & Free Speech in the first place..."

For that reason, ALL Presidents of ALL nations are careful to always make nicey nicey with their General officers.



Except this once, the first time he boarded Marine One in January 2009, he attempted to shake hands with a Marine :