ROTC and Columbia University's non-discrimination policy

Add 09Dec11: This version was submitted by e-mail in February 2011 to the Task Force on Military Engagement.

Question: Can ROTC, under current law, co-exist on campus with Columbia's non-discrimination policy, as currently written?

My answer: Yes.

Using the non-discrimination policy as the reason for excluding a critical part of society from the University is a dangerous interpretation of the policy. In principle, the non-discrimination policy is meant to promote organic diversity and constructive engagement on campus, and protect inclusion at Columbia, which rightfully includes ROTC along with other critical relationships that may be cast as discriminatory in some aspect, such as a women's college and religions. Advancing the university's higher pedagogical and public service missions through real diversity, engagement, and inclusion will necessitate, at times, some sensitive trade-offs; the non-discrimination policy addresses the friction that may result. Columbia's non-discrimination policy becomes grossly corrupted when it is misused as a tool of exclusion, as has happened with ROTC at Columbia.

Barnard's admissions policy is the clearest example that, when justified by the greater good, lawful accomodations with the non-discrimination policy are made for existing University associations. I believe other similar examples at Columbia can be found. The question is not whether lawful accomodations can be made with the non-discrimination policy, because they already are. The proper question is whether a lawful accomodation is justified for the greater good.

Just as importantly, it does not appear from a plain reading of Columbia's non-discrimination policy that hosting ROTC on campus, under current law, would in fact violate Columbia's non-discrimination policy.

Read COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND STUDENT NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT.

From opening paragraph: Columbia University is committed to providing a learning environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment . . . Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws, it is the policy of the University not to tolerate unlawful discrimination . . .

Key phrasing is "unlawful discrimination". Whatever is one's personal opinion of it, military personnel policy is lawful, not unlawful.

From second paragraph: Columbia University does not discriminate against any person in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other University-administered programs . . .

Key phrasing is "its [Columbia's] ... policies". Military personnel policy is set by the federal government and is not Columbia's policy. Military personnel policy is limited to a defined jurisdiction.

A distinction can be made between the military's commissioning requirements and the academic program on campus. In order to serve its wider pedagogical function, much of the ROTC program normally is open to the general student body. Other universities that host ROTC with non-discrimination policies similar to Columbia's policy are able to distinguish between university policy and federal policy. President Bollinger, as the former provost of Dartmouth AROTC and former president of UMichigan AROTC, AFROTC, and NROTC, is well-suited to manage the ROTC relationship on campus.

From Definitions: Discrimination is defined as: • treating members of a protected class less favorably because of their membership in that class; or • having a policy or practice that has a disproportionately adverse impact on protected class members.

Lawful accomodations, such as Barnard's admissions policy, do not infringe the protection of a legally "protected class". As a practical matter, ROTC enhances the course offerings for Columbia students, while the addition of ROTC on campus would not subtract nor replace anything that currently exists for students. Nor would ROTC require Columbia to rewrite the non-discrimination policy. "Military status" enumerated as a legally protected class in Columbia's non-discrimination policy also ensures that members of ROTC would be protected and raises the question of the University's responsibility to Columbia's ROTC students.

From Definitions: Discriminatory Harassment - Discriminatory harassment is defined as substantially interfering with an individual's educational experience by subjecting him or her to severe or threatening conduct or to repeated humiliating or abusive conduct, based on his or her membership in a protected class.

ROTC and its manifestations on campus (office, classes, training, etc.) would not be a separate zone on campus that allows discriminatory harassment. ROTC cadre and participating students would be held to the same standards of behavior as all Columbians. Columbia students should feel as safe in ROTC offices as anywhere else on campus.

Post-script:

Task Force,

Due to subsequent feedback, I learned I omitted 2 significant pieces of analysis in my original opinion on ROTC and Columbia's non-discrimination policy:

From opening paragraph: Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws . . .

Key phrasing is "applicable laws". Anti-discrimination laws for ordinary civilian employers have sometimes been cited in the case against ROTC at Columbia. However, for obvious reasons, laws that regulate ordinary civilian employers do not apply to military personnel policy, which is regulated by separate federal statutes and case law.

From third paragraph: Nothing in this policy shall abridge academic freedom or the University’s educational mission.

The superseding provision in Columbia’s non-discrimination policy retains the University's discretion to promote the “University's educational mission” notwithstanding any other provision of the nondiscrimination policy. The University Senate is deciding whether ROTC will be included in the University’s educational mission. While Columbia can decide to exclude ROTC, the same discretion allows Columbia to add ROTC to the University's educational mission without compromise.

Thank you for your consideration.

Original version posted on 15DEC08:

Question: Can ROTC, under current law, co-exist on campus with Columbia's non-discrimination policy, as currently written?

My answer: Yes.

Using the non-discrimination policy as the reason for excluding a critical segment of society from the university is a dangerous interpretation of the policy. The non-discrimination policy is meant to promote organic diversity and constructive engagement on campus, and protect inclusion at Columbia, which rightfully includes ROTC along with other critical relationships that may be cast as discriminatory in some aspect, such as a women's college and religions. Advancing the university's higher educational and public service missions through real diversity, engagement, and inclusion will necessitate, at times, some sensitive trade-offs; the non-discrimination policy addresses any friction that may result. Columbia's non-discrimination policy becomes grossly corrupted when it is misused as a tool of exclusion, as has happened with ROTC at Columbia.

Barnard's admissions policy is the clearest example that, when justified by the greater good, lawful accomodations with the non-discrimination policy are made for existing university associations. I believe other similar examples at Columbia can be found. The question is not whether lawful accomodations can be made with the non-discrimination policy, because they already are. The proper question is whether a lawful accomodation is justified for the greater good.

Just as importantly, it does not appear upon a plain reading of Columbia's non-discrimination policy that hosting ROTC on campus, under current law, would in fact violate Columbia's non-discrimination policy.

Read COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY EQUAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND STUDENT NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT.

From opening paragraph: Columbia University is committed to providing a learning environment free from unlawful discrimination and harassment . . . Consistent with this commitment and with applicable laws, it is the policy of the University not to tolerate unlawful discrimination . . .

Key phrasing is "unlawful discrimination". Until the DADT law changes, DADT is the law and therefore lawful, not unlawful.

From second paragraph: Columbia University does not discriminate against any person in the administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other University-administered programs . . .

Key phrasing is "its ... policies". DADT is a federal law, not Columbia's policy, and is limited to a defined jurisdiction. A distinction can be made between the military's commissioning requirements and the campus academic program. In order to serve its wider pedagogical function, much of the ROTC program normally is open to the general student body, subject to ordinary logistical restraints. Other universities with ROTC on campus and non-discrimination policies similar to Columbia's non-discrimination policy distinguish between university policy and federal policy, for example, MIT. As Johns Hopkins University does with their Army ROTC, Columbia can even take the extra step of supporting ROTC on campus while explicitly objecting to DADT. President Bollinger, as the former provost of Dartmouth AROTC and former president of UMichigan AROTC, AFROTC, and NROTC, should be prepared to manage the ROTC relationship on campus.

From Definitions: Discrimination is defined as: • treating members of a protected class less favorably because of their membership in that class; or • having a policy or practice that has a disproportionately adverse impact on protected class members.

The addition of ROTC on campus would not, as a practical matter, subtract nor replace anything that currently exists for Columbia students nor would it require Columbia to rewrite the non-discrimination policy. "Military status" enumerated as a protected category in Columbia's non-discrimination policy also ensures that ROTC on campus would be protected and raises the question of the university's responsibility to Columbia's ROTC students.

From Definitions: Discriminatory Harassment - Discriminatory harassment is defined as substantially interfering with an individual's educational experience by subjecting him or her to severe or threatening conduct or to repeated humiliating or abusive conduct, based on his or her membership in a protected class.

ROTC and its manifestations on campus (office, classes, training, etc.) would not be a separate zone on campus that allows discriminatory harassment. ROTC cadre and participating students would be held to the same standards of behavior as all Columbians. An LGBT person should feel as safe in ROTC offices as anywhere else on campus.

Eric

Crazy brave soldiers

Washington Post story 10 Green Berets to Receive Silver Star for Afghan Battle hints at an amazing story of bravery in battle. Worth the read.

Buried within the account of the Special Forces troops' experience, this stands out:

A medical evacuation helicopter flew in, but the rotors were immediately hit by bullets, so the pilot hovered just long enough to allow the in-flight medic to jump off, then flew away.

That's right. A medic left the relative safety and escapability of his medical evacuation helicopter, knowing the helicopter was in too much danger and would leave him, in order to join the heavily wounded SF troops on the ground, while they were still under fire. I wonder, was the unnamed medic awarded a medal, too, for his act of duty and selfless service?

Wow. Soldiers.

Eric

Columbia University War Memorial

Pictured is the pin-on red paper rose handed out to guests at the event.


Pictured with the plaque is Marines lieutenant Dan Cross, a fellow GS 07 graduate, who rendered Columbia Class of 2006 Marines lieutenant Mark Xue's first salute.

Last night, I attended the unveiling of the Columbia University war memorial, which will be displayed after New Years in Butler Library in the lobby to the left of the main staircase. The plaque will be accompanied by an interactive information kiosk. The website in the kiosk is accessible on-line.

I found out William V. Campbell, Chair of Columbia's Board of Trustees, is an enlisted Army veteran.

With MilVets and Hamilton Society, the several grassroots efforts for ROTC return in recent years, this memorial, and a newly forming veterans alumni club, it's clear that Columbia's military heritage is making a broad comeback.

Eric

Columbia NROTC vote break-down by school

BWOG announced the by-school breakdown of the NROTC vote by percentage:

CC: NO:53.0% YES:46.8% ABSTAIN:0.2%
SEAS: NO:46.4% YES:53.6% ABSTAIN:0.0%
GS: NO:44.4% YES:55.1% ABSTAIN:0.5%

GS and SEAS both voted for NROTC, which means by school, the vote tied 2 to 2 (Barnard voted against).

For a generalized explanation, Barnard and CC students are more ideological, SEAS students are more pragmatic, and GS students tend to have more real-world experience and a broader perspective. As well, the majority of student-veterans at Columbia attend GS.

The SEAS vote for NROTC is very intriguing because the NROTC initiative originated from SEAS. The Navy is interested in SEAS engineers while Navy career service options suit SEAS students the best; therefore, it stands to reason that NROTC on campus would have disproportionate impact and benefit for SEAS. If SEAS wants NROTC at Columbia and NROTC would benefit SEAS the most, should the university deny the practical benefits of NROTC to SEAS students for ideological reasons?

Eric

80% of Columbia students did not vote against NROTC

Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Okay, I get that, but the Columbia student poll on NROTC is a new body of evidence worth analyzing.

Earlier, from my natural pro-ROTC perspective, I wondered why 57% of CC, GS, and SEAS students declined to vote. I speculated that they weren't convinced to vote against NROTC, but also didn't know enough about NROTC to vote for it, hence my blame of the student councils for failing to produce their promised NROTC information packet. While many of the non-voting students may have abstained for other reasons, and it's worth finding out those reasons, the difference was only 39 votes in an aggregated total. It's not unreasonable to believe 40/3942 additional students would have voted if they had been given better information on the subject.

05DEC08 Update: The student councils also promised to organize 2 forums about NROTC and only held 1 forum. The 1 student council-run forum was dominated by DADT. The 2nd student council-run forum, conceivably, would have been focused on NROTC rather than DADT, and illuminated such topics as Columbia's NROTC history, financial aid, classes and requirements, Naval and Marines officership as career service options, and recruiting. Failing to provide both a 2nd forum on NROTC and the information packet stand out to me as a gross failure by the student councils. While one can argue the Columbia Students for NROTC could have made up the shortfall, the survey was organized by the student councils and they determined the format, which included 2 instructional forums and a comprehensive information packet to be distributed to all students. It is reasonable for CSfNROTC, who were already hard-pressed for resources, to have relied upon the student councils to do what they said they would do and incorporated the 2 forums and information packet into their own planning. Again, with a vote differential of only 39 votes, any oversight by the student councils stands out, and their failure to educate the students about NROTC, as they promised they would, is a major flaw in the conduct of this survey.

Now, I'm wondering why nearly 80% (non vote plus yes vote = 78.27%) of CC, GS, and SEAS students did not vote against NROTC. I assumed in the previous paragraph that more students didn't vote for NROTC because they simply didn't know enough about the program and the case for NROTC. However, that is not an assumption I can ascribe to DADT and the case against NROTC on campus. From President Bollinger's early e-mail, to popular opposition to DADT, to the intense single-note drumbeat about DADT by the impassioned anti-ROTC coalition, to the current student generation's from-birth indoctrination in identity-based rights, we can trust every student understood the opposition to NROTC on the basis of DADT. Yet, 80% of students did not vote against NROTC on that basis, or any basis. Thoughts on why?

The verdict, so far, on the NROTC survey is that it's inconclusive. The aggregate vote for CC, SEAS, and GS students is a virtual tie, the failure to provide a by-school breakdown - particularly for SEAS which originated the interest in NROTC - is a critical oversight [18JAN09 update: SEAS and GS voted for and CC voted against NROTC], there were other notable student council oversights, and nearly 2000 votes were thrown out and have yet to be fully accounted for (more a transparency than conspiracy concern, but 2000 is still a lot). In addition, the high number (57%) of students who chose not to vote and the very high number (nearly 80%) of students who did not vote against NROTC on campus, despite the heavy emphasis placed on DADT, raise new questions.

Eric

How South Park did the election day episode

Via Coed Magazine, here is an IGN interview with Matt Stone, who explains how South Park made the ultra-topical election day episode, which included direct references to election day yet aired the next day. The interview is also worth reading for Stone's insight about how he and Trey Parker think about the show and produce it.

Reading the interview reminds me that serious artists often seem overly modest, even disconnected, when discussing their creative process, to the degree that the vivid art they produce has a life and influence independent of its creator. The explanation, I believe, is that the essential creativity that births art is not really a process at all; it's inspiration, and inspiration is more an impulse or a feeling which can't easily be explained. The craft of art is something else, and that's what artists usually talk about when they explain their art. The craft of art includes the skills, practices, tools and media used to harness formless inspiration into expressed art.

Eric

57% of students didn't vote in Columbia NROTC poll

From BWOG:

We sent out 6913 email invitations, including all CC, SEAS, and GS
undergraduate students. We received 2971 valid votes, representing 43% of the population.

1463 YES, 49.24%;
1502 NO, 50.56%;
6 ABSTAIN, 0.20%.

That means 57% or 3942 of students in CC, GS, and SEAS declined to vote. Why didn't they? It matters when a survey is decided by only 39 votes across the 3 colleges and many more students didn't vote than voted. (By the way, nearly 2000 votes were thrown out, but that's another issue.)

Despite the intense and sustained attention paid to DADT by both sides, 3942 students were not swayed to vote against NROTC on that basis. Why, then, didn't some of those students vote for NROTC? Were they simply dogmatically apathetic or neutral about NROTC and DADT? Or maybe they would have voted, but didn't feel they knew enough about NROTC to make an informed decision.

The student councils were supposed to jointly produce and distribute a comprehensive information packet about NROTC, its history, financial aid, recruitment, etc., to all the students, which they failed to do. I wonder how many of the non-voting students would have voted if they had been given the information packet. Maybe 40?

Eric

Columbia NROTC poll results are in

Columbia Spectator reports the aggregate vote of Columbia College, General Studies, and SEAS as 1502-no to 1463-yes. The separately tallied result for Barnard is 736-no to 453-yes.

The splits for the CC, GS and SEAS polls are unknown because the votes were counted together. That's meaningful because only 39 votes separated yes from no across 3 colleges, so it's possible that 1 or 2 of the 3 college student bodies voted in favor of NROTC.

If the colleges tied 2 to 2, that would be interesting.

Even if only SEAS voted for NROTC, that would also be interesting given that the NROTC initiative came from SEAS. The interest is recipocral - Navy ROTC's interest in Columbia is primarily for SEAS engineers, which means NROTC conceivably would have a disproportionate impact and benefit for SEAS students. If only SEAS students voted for NROTC and the program benefits them the most, would it be fair for their classmates to deny them the opportunity? Again, I don't know that SEAS students voted for NROTC or not, but it would be interesting if they did.

11DEC08 UPDATE: SEAS and GS voted for NROTC. CC and Barnard voted against.

Eric

Waiting for NROTC student poll result

I've spent the last few hours obsessively refreshing on BWOG and the Columbia Spectator hoping they'll post the result of the NROTC poll. The poll was supposed to end on Monday and it is computerized, so the results should be instantly available, right? Apparently not. Latest word is that CC, GS and SEAS know their results, but Barnard is holding their poll open until 9 am today, and the student councils may opt to issue a joint statement around noon.

I've passed the time on youtube. Here's a treat, a young and adorable Lea Salonga with Brad Kane singing "A Whole New World" for the first time in studio, probably in winter of 1991-92 given their sweaters, that the animation was done afterwards, and the movie was released in November 1992:



Eric

Darwinian dating

Love in the Time of Darwinism by Kay S. Hymowitz (h/t Villainous Company) is interesting. I think the author of the article tries hard, comes close to, and circles the mark, but doesn't quite break through to capture an understanding of her subject.

I'll just say this: a mutual relationship is not a juxtaposition of two independent entities, it is an interplay that builds upon itself, which means both the man and woman are more than equally responsible. Each is entirely responsible for the greater whole. Both have to give of themselves. A relationship can be unexpected in many ways, but at the core, there does have to be the same commitment and fidelity shared by both. If the commitment is there for one, but not the other, then there isn't a mutual relationship.

Beyond that, I don't know how it works for women. I've only had the barest taste of falling in love, but enough to know that nothing else I've experienced motivates me to become a better man like falling in love with a woman. For a relationship, a man pulls down the walls protecting his heart, bares himself, and makes himself vulnerable in order to give of himself to the woman he loves. There's anguish when she doesn't join him in the commitment. Further, there's a betrayal of faith when she, rather, seemingly gives of herself to other men whose behavior falls short of his love's standard. When his essential self is rejected, he is forced to evaluate his worth. The man is ready to transform for the relationship and, therefore, highly sensitized to the woman's feedback. Rejection is very compelling feedback, so when she rejects him in favor of something else, the man's instinct is to adapt to the preferences displayed by her. Thus, the woman's choice guides the man's choice. The rest, the player and the game, follows.

Men who've been rejected by the woman they love and have adapted their behaviors are often criticized for being selfish, but it's a painful process to rebuild the walls protecting one's wounded heart. You have to do it, but every time you do, those walls are built thicker and tougher and shut out more light.

Whether or not it's a response to post-feminism, the movement toward Darwinian dating in contrast to the pre-feminist civilized romantic ideal is profound if one considers the man-woman partnership to be the basic building block of human civilization. If we are redefining man-woman relationships now, doing so calls for an evaluation of our social norms and moral obligations.

Eric

Columbia undergrads vote on NROTC today

Columbia students from all four undergraduate colleges (Columbia College, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, School of General Studies, and Barnard College) will vote today in an on-line survey whether to support the return of NROTC to Columbia University.

Columbia's student NROTC advocates are to be applauded. They have worked very hard as grassroots activists on campus against both the status quo and a much larger group of opponents to NROTC's return to Columbia. In 2003, a student poll conducted with the April CCSC election yielded two-third of the students in favor of ROTC at Columbia. But in 2005, the university senate voted overwhelmingly against ROTC. The majority of the university senate is composed of faculty, though, not students.

This will be interesting.

Good luck.

Eric

Today is Victory in Iraq day?

Interesting . . .



ADD: Thanks to QandO, an interesting looking book: "A Better Country: Why America Was Right To Confront Iraq". Arthur Borden, 88 pages, Hamilton Books, 2008.

Eric

Joe Lieberman for Secretary of State

A possibly vindictive Democratic national party is wondering what to do about Joe Lieberman. My recommendation is for President-elect Obama to make the the bold centrist choice, take Lieberman out of the Senate and make him Secretary of State. He has been willing to sacrifice his political status in order to support the nation at war. Senator Lieberman is dedicated, principled, measured, and right (liberal) on foreign policy and national security. With the real possibility of his being shunned in the Senate, the appointment of Lieberman would salvage his career, solve the Democrats' dilemma, comfort Americans who supported Senator McCain due to concern over Obama's anti-war record, make a strong signal of bridging the partisan divide, and place the right man in the right job at the right time under the right President.

On the other hand, the appointment of Secretary of State Lieberman would signal a foreign policy direction that would be severely disappointing to many of President-elect Obama's supporters.

Eric

Congratulations, President-Elect Obama

Congratulations to my fellow Columbia Poli-Sci/IR graduate. I hope.

Socially, there is much symbolic good in Senator Obama's election. Regardless of whether he turns out to be an effective president, his election is an important historic step for our society.

As far as the job, the next president, like the current president, has great challenges to navigate our nation through, both at home and abroad. President Bush is a good man who held the reins as well he could, better than I think most people give him credit for. Bush had the right qualities for what was needed from his office on 9/11. President-elect Obama, potentially, has the right qualities for the next stage. Now that Obama will be assuming the office, I hope very much he will transcend his leftist background and radical associations and become the President we need now. We know his impressive personal qualities, but we do not yet know him. The best thing I've heard said about him is that he's ambitious and pragmatic, which I hope to mean he will rise to the job we've hired him to do.

On an issue closer to my heart, I hope President-elect Obama means ROTC will come back to Columbia.

Eric

Thought on the election

Here is what I thought immediately before and after the 2004 presidential election between President Bush and Senator Kerry.

My thinking is similar in the 2008, except paradoxically, Bush's success with the 'surge' in Iraq makes it easier to vote for the Democrat by lowering the risk of American surrender, locking in our commitment, and allowing for a measured assessment by the next administration. Winning the war is still my highest priority when voting for president because foreign affairs fall predominantly in the executive branch. On that issue, McCain has an edge. Obama, however, offers the opportunity to approach our foreign affairs from a very different direction, for better or worse.

For both McCain and Obama, there are compelling arguments for and against. We'll see. Either way, I feel better about this election than the last one.

Eric

Touching HSBC commercial with logger and environmentalist couple

The message of HSBC's current ad campaign is that they understand the different values people have for the same subjects, and therefore, are equipped to be the local bank for different people in a diverse world. With that theme, HSBC has a series of poster ads in New York City subways right now with opposing interpretations of the same image. It's an artistic campaign with a worthwhile social message for what often seems to be an increasingly partisan society. I'm glad they're doing it, although I wonder whether it will succeed as business advertising.

This HSBC commercial, about an environmentalist wife angry and in love with her forbearing logger husband (judging by the ring on her left ring finger) or possibly boyfriend, is touching and stands out for its sensitive portrayal of all sides, the police, environmentalists, and the loggers.



The song is "Clam, Crab, Cockle, Cowrie" by Joanna Newsom.

Eric

Response to Columbia President Bollinger's e-mail on ROTC

On September 25, 2008, Bwog, the humorous news blog from Columbia student magazine Blue and White, posted President Bollinger's e-mail about the current NROTC debate. I'm re-posting Bollinger's statement here in full (bold text) with my comments interjected:

Dear fellow member of the Columbia community:

Now that the glow, and the dust, of the nationally broadcast ServiceNation Presidential Forum has settled just a bit, I want to respond to one issue that emerged in the discussions, namely the role of ROTC and the campus.

First, let me say that Columbia University has a long and continuing tradition of making special efforts to open its doors to men and women with military service. For example, there are more than 50 veteran service men and women currently enrolled in our School of General Studies, many of whom have recently returned from active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, including 19 incoming students this year alone. The School of General Studies was founded in 1947 largely to enable veterans of War World II to secure an Ivy League education. While we certainly have many veterans attending the University's many graduate schools, we are very proud of the fact that General Studies continues actively to recruit military veterans as part of its mission of providing a Columbia education to a wide diversity of nontraditional undergraduates.

Me: As the student-veteran who started MilVets in 2002, I applaud President Bollinger for recognizing the value of student-veterans at Columbia. I want Columbia to be the leading destination in the country for veterans who seek to earn their college degrees at one of the world's most prestigious academic institutions. The student-veterans community at Columbia, however, only serves to highlight - not excuse - the loss of ROTC as the fundamental military-academic institutional relationship.

Second, as some of you may already know, it is inaccurate to say that Columbia students do not have ROTC available to them. In fact, the University has continued to facilitate the participation of interested students who, like their peers at almost every other New York area college, take part in one of two regional magnet ROTC sites at Fordham and St. John's. These Columbia students receive the same scholarship benefits as those at schools that formally host ROTC.

Me: Although President Bollinger refers to ROTC in general terms, the current student debate of 2008 is focused on Navy ROTC. The NROTC initiative originated from the special interest of SEAS students in Naval officership as an attractive career service option for engineers. Whereas Air Force and Army ROTC on other campuses are marginally available to Columbia students, students currently have no access to Navy ROTC. The absence of Navy ROTC at Columbia is particularly tragic given the storied history of Columbia NROTC, which was interrupted in 1969.

The two ROTC programs with Columbia students are the Air Force ROTC program located at Manhattan College and the Army ROTC program located at Fordham University, both in the Bronx. Columbia students can also enroll in the Marines' Officer Candidate School program. While Class of 2004 graduate and Iraq veteran Josh Arthur commissioned through St. John's Army ROTC in Queens, St. John's ROTC is not a practical option for Columbia students.

Third, it should be noted that, as the Wall Street Journal reported last year, the Department of Defense (DOD) has, for its own fiscal reasons, instituted a policy of aggregating small numbers of ROTC students in urban areas into pooled programs on a limited number of campuses. Currently, five Columbia students are enrolled in the New York regional ROTC program at Fordham. As a result, it is not at all clear whether a change of policy would have any impact on the current practice of having our students travel to one of the other campus ROTC sites, as do virtually all other students at New York area colleges and many others across the nation.

Me: President Bollinger is correct that an invitation from Columbia to the military would not automatically cause the military to place an ROTC program at Columbia. The military, as with any investment of the people's resources, would have to first evaluate Columbia as a prospective ROTC host. However, President Bollinger glosses over that the necessary first step for the military to even consider Columbia as an ROTC host is an invitation from the university. As for the low number of current cadets, President Bollinger should consider whether the rejected exile status of ROTC at Columbia, alienation from absence and missing exposure on campus, distance and poor access in urban terms, and lack of institutional cooperation may be causal factors for the low current number of Columbia students enrolled in ROTC.

While President Bollinger is correct to point out that the use of ROTC 'hubs' is by military design, the Wall Street Journal article he cited, Greg Jaffe's "A Retreat From Big Cities Hurts ROTC Recruiting", actually is critical of the military for the ROTC arrangement used in New York City, which places ROTC on the outskirts of the city's student population centers. It is highly questionable whether the military's current placement of ROTC 'hubs', designed for dispersed suburban and rural regions, adequately serves the students of New York City's dense, concentrated metropolis. Jaffe's article is largely based on the research of Advocates for Columbia ROTC chairman Sean Wilkes, which shows that New York City students are extremely underrepresented in ROTC. It is reasonable to infer that the number of New York students, including Columbia students, currently enrolled in ROTC is artificially depressed, not optimal as implied by President Bollinger. The simple solution to the New York ROTC problem is for the military and New York City universities to work together on co-locating ROTC programs with the city's largest student population centers in Manhattan on campuses such as Columbia.

Finally, in 2005, the University Senate voted overwhelmingly against formally inviting ROTC onto campus. Senate members may have had a variety of reasons for their votes, but the record and official reports make it reasonably clear that the predominant reason was one of adhering to a core principle of the University: that we will not have programs on the campus that discriminate against students on the basis of such categories as race, gender, military veteran status, or sexual orientation. Under the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the Defense Department, openly gay and lesbian students could or would be excluded from participating in ROTC activities. That is inconsistent with the fundamental values of the University. A number of our peer institutions have taken a similar position.

Me: I was MilVets Vice-President when we successfully lobbied for reform of the university's non-discrimination policy in spring 2006. President Bollinger erred when he described "military veteran status" as a protected category in Columbia's non-discrimination policy. In fact, the protected category is "military status", which includes ROTC cadets as well as veterans. One may question whether Columbia's current policy on ROTC, which forces students away from Columbia in order to participate in ROTC, constitutes discrimination. Regarding the 2005 university senate vote, it should be noted that in 2003, students voted 2:1 in favor of ROTC, and in 2005, the university senate's ROTC task force deadlocked 5-5 on the question of whether ROTC should return to Columbia as soon as practical, i.e., the 2006-2007 academic year. Therefore, the 2005 university senate vote may not accurately reflect the entire university community's consensus view on the issue. Be that as it may, the university senate is the deciding authority on Columbia's ROTC policy.

"Don't Ask Don't Tell" is a federal law, not a Department of Defense policy.

Finally, while I applaud responsible legislative efforts to reform a DADT law I disagree with, I find President Bollinger's use of Columbia's non-discrimination policy to excuse the exclusion of a critical segment of society to be irresponsible. The non-discrimination policy is meant to promote openness at Columbia - not close off the university, protect inclusion, and increase organic diversity and engagement on campus, which rightfully includes ROTC along with other institutions, such as a women's college and religions, that may be discriminatory in some aspect. Real openness, inclusion, diversity, and engagement on campus will involve conflict and friction in some instances, but that is the responsible way for Columbia to make a difference. The non-discrimination policy addresses conflicts that arise from inclusion and diversity. However, Columbia's non-discrimination policy becomes corrupted when miscast as a tool for exclusion, segregation, and reduction of the university, as has happened with ROTC at Columbia.

In closing, let me just say that this issue is a serious one deserving of our full and continuous attention. The University, as such, does not take positions on major public issues, except as they pertain directly to our own policies, so that is not the question at stake here. The University must, however, operate according to its basic norms and principles in fulfilling our mission of research, teaching, and public service. Along with everything else, these, too, are open for robust discussion and debate--including how we define, articulate, and apply those principles. We should always welcome discussion, but we should also always try to live up to the ideals we agree on.

Me: The principles I advocate for Columbia, in addition to service and duty, are opportunity, inclusion, engagement, and diversity, which rightfully includes ROTC as an organic, vibrantly engaged citizen of the Columbia campus community. President Bollinger states that "teaching and public service" are part of Columbia's mission. I enthusiastically agree: ROTC at Columbia, as an important military teaching resource and traditional route to civic progressive service, should be encouraged and facilitated by the university, rather than discouraged by Columbia's current bar on ROTC.

Sincerely,
Lee C. Bollinger
President

Me: Thank you for the opportunity to respond, President Bollinger.

Sincerely,
Eric
Alumnus

Add: 30OCT10 updated version on Securenation.

I saw Neil Gaiman in person!

I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan. His Sandman graphic novels are at the top of my list of all-time favorite fiction, and his traditional novels are excellent, too. On Tuesday, September 30th, thanks to a timely heads-up from the Columbia University Science Fiction Society, I was lucky enough to see Neil Gaiman in person at the Horace Mann theater in Columbia's Teachers College. He was there to start the book tour for his new book, The Graveyard Book. Gaiman read the first chapter and it sounded as enchanting as all his previous work. He had on highly shined boots. Here is the Columbia Spectator account of the event.

During Gaiman's reading, I sat on the steps by stage-left, Gaiman's right, maybe 12 feet away from him:



For Gaiman's question and answer session after the intermission, I moved up to the balcony:



It would have been too cool to have had a photo taken with Gaiman, but oh well. I also would have liked to ask him if he has considered pairing up with Guillermo Del Toro, the director of Pan's Labrynth and The Orphanage, movies which closely match Gaiman's aesthetic. But I forgot. Oh well, too.

Eric

Obama and McCain support ROTC return to Columbia University

Excerpts are from the September 11, 2008 ServiceNation event at Columbia University.

MCCAIN ON ROTC:

STENGEL: We have the greatest fighting army in the world, I think everyone would agree. But is there something about this picture that you think needs to change, this social imbalance?

MCCAIN: Well, I would remind you in the days of the draft that it was then most unfair because the lowest income Americans served and the wealthiest found ways of avoiding draft. I think the all- volunteer force is having difficulties recruiting and retaining because we're too small and we need to expand the size of our military and we need to do it as rapidly as possible.

And there are -- we have got to perhaps offer additional incentives. For a long time, years ago, the Navy and Air Force were losing pilots. So we paid them more and we had more of them stay in. Their first reason for serving is patriotism, but also, you have got to offer them incentives in order to do so.

And frankly, we're here in a wonderful institution. I'm proud that my daughter graduated from this school. But do you know that this school will not allow ROTC on this campus? I don't think that's right. Shouldn't the students here be exposed to the attractiveness of serving in the military, particularly as an officer?

So maybe -- maybe the -- I would hope that these universities would re-examine -- I would hope that these universities would re-examine that policy of not even allowing people who come here to represent the military and other Ivy League schools and then maybe they will be able to attract some more.

OBAMA ON ROTC:

OBAMA: But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.

STENGEL: To that end, to get the best and brightest into the military, this university, your alma mater, invited President Ahmadinejad of Iran to be here last year, but they haven't invited ROTC to be on campus since 1969. Should Columbia and elite universities that have excluded ROTC invite them back on campus?

OBAMA: Yes. I think we've made a mistake on that.

(APPLAUSE)

I recognize that there are students here who have differences in terms of military policy. But the notion that young people here at Columbia or anywhere, in any university, aren't offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake.

That does not mean we disregard any potential differences in various issues that are raised by the students here, but it does mean that we should have an honest debate while still offering opportunities for everybody to serve, and that's something that I'm pretty clear about.

I am heartened by Senators McCain's and Obama's statements that support the restoration of ROTC at Columbia University. However, it is not a new sentiment from the two candidates; it stands out only because they stated it on campus. The key is to turn general principled support for ROTC-return into substantive nuts-and-bolts reform involving the university, government and military, and Columbia ROTC advocates.

There is already an active movement to restore ROTC at Columbia University, which has been active since 2002. Here is the Advocates for Columbia ROTC website.

Eric

Response to Professor Nacos' "To Counter or Not to Counter Attacks by a “Pit Bull with Lipstick”"

My response to Professor Nacos' latest post about the Republicans' candidate for Vice-President:

Professor Nacos,

From what I've seen, the negative talk against Governor Palin by Dems and some in the media has been harsh. The first attacks were leveled against her, and the McCain campaign and Palin effectively responded. The attacks were blunted for a moment while the Dems, media and the rest of us learned about Palin, but the attacks are picking up again.

Senator McCain surprised me by going in an unexpected direction with his campaign, by presenting himself as a virtual Independent and GOP reformer, and skillful timing. He effectively timed the announcement of his Palin pick to blunt the DNC bounce for Obama and then timed her unveiling at the RNC to fuel his RNC bounce. Round 1 of the Palin period of the campaign goes to the GOP. The Dems were knocked off balance and placed on the defensive for the 1st time in this election contest. It was only a learning or feeling out period, though. Now that Round 1 is past, and both sides have established their strategies and know each other, we can watch the real contest unfold. This election just got interesting.

Assorted observations:

Age-wise, Palin is 44, Obama is 47, and Bill Clinton was 46 when he became President. The age issue is an asset for the Dems in this election, but how do you raise it without sounding age-ist and alienating a large segment of the electorate? Biden turns 66 in November.

McCain's arguments against Obama resonate in large part because they're borrowed from the arguments formulated by Clinton against Obama.

It was a surprisingly dumb move by the Dems to disparage Palin as a small-town mayor in general, given Obama's controversial statements about small-town America during the Democrat primaries, but especially so when Palin is a sitting state governor, no longer a mayor. It practically invited the obvious counter-punch against Obama's experience.

So far, Governor Palin has shown herself to be a better counter-puncher against the Obama campaign than Senator Clinton was. Palin, it appears, is no Dan Quayle.

The Dems have to take special care attacking Palin, because the obvious avenues of attack boomerang back to Obama or Biden. For example, you point out Alaska's low population to devalue Palin's experience; however, Dems VPOTUS candidate Biden's state has an approx 900,000 count population compared to Alaska's approx 700,000 count population, while Alaska is geographically the largest state with its own unique governing challenges whereas Delaware is the 2nd smallest state. (I say this mostly tongue in cheek, but recall that popular TV series West Wing featured a President who was governor of New Hampshire.)

It's undeniable that Governor Palin owns the executive advantage in this election, which matters given that 4 of our last 5 presidents were governors while the other president was a 8-year VP. Which is to say, it doesn't help the Dems to highlight that the GOP VPOTUS candidate's experience compares favorably to the Dems POTUS candidate's experience. Even the scrutiny of Palin's controversies serve to highlight Obama's controversies (condescending against small town America, Rev Wright, Ayers, Rezko, etc).

The better criticism of Governor Palin's political experience is to point out that Alaska has an exceptionally large budget for an exceptionally low population, which is not representative of the rest of the US, although again, governing Alaska carries its own unique challenges.

Regarding your point about Sarah Palin's family under public scrutiny, it struck me watching the RNC how comfortable her children and husband looked in front of the cameras and under the lights, especially her youngest daughter. I don't know what kind of politics they play in Alaska, but the Palin family seems surprisingly well-trained for the political game. At least, they're certainly photogenic. Moreover, Palin's reaction to public scrutiny of her daughter's pregnancy was to push Bristol and her fiance out front, which shows Palin to be a counter-puncher rather than a cover-upper. It also shows that Palin teaches her kids to step forward, not back down, when faced with adversity.

My criticism of Palin regarding her children: While it reflects very well on Palin as a parent that her eldest son Track volunteered to serve as a soldier (balance: Biden's son is also a soldier deploying to Iraq, which reflects well upon him as a father), I wish she had kept her son off camera and didn't announce when he was deploying to Iraq as an infantryman. Remember how Prince Harry was pulled prematurely from his tour of duty in Afghanistan? Conceivably, Palin's son - Biden's son, too - can be serving in Iraq as the son of the VPOTUS, a high value target.

I don't understand the assertion that Governor Palin wasn't properly vetted by Senator McCain. What evidence is there of that? Certainly, Palin has appeared to be an effective pick so far with multiple strengths added to the campaign. If McCain did pick Palin based solely on 'gut', that's some kind of instinct. Also, if McCain meant to fish for the Hillary vote instead of energizing the GOP base, he easily could have picked another GOP woman. For example, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle actually appealed to my tastes (as a voter!) more than Governor Palin during the RNC speeches, and Lingle reminds more than Palin of Senator Clinton or even Geraldine Ferraro.

Eric

Response to Professor Epstein's "Palin Isn't the Story"

Read Columbia Professor Epstein's post on Professor Nacos' blog. My response:

The McCain campaign has proven to be more adept than I expected. Senator McCain, rather than follow the standard GOP platform, has presented himself as a virtual Independent. Given the setting, McCain rather forcefully rebuked his own party during his acceptance speech. McCain is now cast as the substantive 'change' candidate, the career reformer, the outside-the-box maverick, who has a lifetime record of independent judgement and results, and a long family heritage of lives given to America-first public service. In effect, McCain has at least partially disowned and countered the GOP with his message of vote for or against me based on my merits versus Obama's merits, not on my party affiliation.

That said, the case the McCain campaign has put forward against Senator Obama is the same case that Senator Clinton put forward against Senator Obama, so it's not as though the McCain campaign has been forced to be innovative. The difference is that Clinton's anti-Obama argument is more compelling with the comparison of Senator McCain's record and (political and life) experience to Senator Obama's record and experience.

The Democrats have been front-running for so long in this election cycle, it was interesting that for the first time, they were forced to speak from a defensive position following the GOP convention. By emphasizing, as you have done Professor, that a vote for Obama ought to be a broader vote against the Republicans, the Dems have tacitly admitted that purely within a candidates-to-candidates comparison, McCain and Palin own distinct advantages over Obama and Biden.

I agree with you that arguing against Governor Palin's experience is a bad choice for the Democrats. First of all, it highlights the main flaw of the Dems presidential candidate, which is a poor pay-off when attacking a VICE-presidential candidate. It also emphasizes that Obama chose Biden to be his VP as a Cheney redux, highlighting Obama's lack of self-confidence in his foreign policy judgement, whereas McCain's Palin choice displays McCain's confidence in his own foreign policy judgement. The only way attacking Palin on experience can work is to be age-ist and imply that McCain is going to die in office, due to no other reason than his old age. Highlighting Palin in the campaign also backfires because her political experience actually compares favorably with Senator Obama's political experience. Of the Presidents in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr were all governors before they became President. George Bush Sr, of course, was Vice-President for 8 years. In other words, history shows that high-level executive experience matters to the American people when we choose our Presidents. Of all the candidates in this election, Governor Palin holds the most and highest executive experience.

As an Independent, I wish Senator McCain was 10 years younger and that he was more inclined to the Democrats agenda rather than the GOP agenda. At the same time, I wish Senator Obama had a track record that reinforced his appealing pledges and he had served his country in the military in some capacity, at least something akin to President Bush's Air National Guard service.

On the Columbia issue, Senator Obama is a fellow Columbia grad, who even majored in Poli-Sci/IR like I did. Senator McCain's daughter graduated from Columbia, too, which is good, but I'll give the edge to Obama.

Eric

Glimpse inside President Bush's decision on the 'Surge' or the real '3 am call'

Via the always excellent Small Wars Journal, here is a fascinating look by NY Times reporter Michael Gordon, Troop ‘Surge’ Took Place Amid Doubt and Debate, inside the sharp debates, disagreements, and decision-making process that led to the present COIN strategy in Iraq. My biggest criticism of President Bush has been his reliance on delegating, which is not necessarily a poor leadership style, but in a war demanding evolutionary institutional changes, we've needed a President more like FDR who was more of a micro-manager.

EXCERPT: "But Mr. Bush’s penchant to defer to commanders in the field and to a powerful defense secretary delayed the development of a new approach until conditions in Iraq, in the words of a November 2006 analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency, resembled anarchy and “civil war.”

In this case, his penchant for delegating was near-disastrous, but when the crisis point was reached, he did take the necessary action. For the most part, President Bush is made out in the article to be a competent, committed leader who made a tough choice from among a set of strongly held diverging 'expert' views.

President Bush is often maligned as a bumpkin whose strings are pulled by a neo-con cabal, a view reinforced by his less-than-stately public demeanor. Even viewed sympathetically, I believe Bush could have - should have - made the call for the COIN 'Surge' sooner had he been more of a micro-manager rather than a delegator.

However, the Gordon article shows President Bush chose a risky course of action under great pressure to do otherwise, with great deliberation, and so far at least, the course of action has been the correct one. In fact, the group that included GEN David Petraeus and advocated for the course of action that President Bush eventually chose - over the proposals of commanders in Iraq and top military and administration officials - does not seem like it was the most influential group in the debate.

The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign featured an ad touting her as better qualified than Obama to answer the "3 am call" and make a tough decision with far-reaching international implications. President Bush made his '3 am call' decision with the COIN "Surge".

How will Senator Obama or even Senator McCain fare when they face such an enormous decision without a clearly correct answer, when a decision must be made, when different factions are calling for radically different courses of action? Can either of them be as (eventually) decisive, committed to mission success, and deliberate as President Bush? As much as President Bush is degraded today by popular political culture, I would not be surprised if historians with access to now-classified records treat him much more kindly.

Eric

About the VP candidates

I wrote this comment in response to a Tom Barnett post:

It is interesting that the Democrats are placed in the peculiar position that the best arguments against Governor Palin as a VP candidate highlight the best arguments against Senator Obama as the Presidential candidate. Governor Palin is essentially an approximate Republican version of Senator Obama.

Regarding lack of foreign policy experience, hasn't that been the standard argument used against Presidential candidates coming from the governor ranks rather than the Senate ranks? I recall the same criticism directed toward Governors Clinton and Bush Jr during their respective campaigns. The off-set, of course, is that governors can tout their local domestic experience, which seemed more important in the 1992-2000 presidential elections, and greater executive qualifications for an executive position.

Of course, since 9/11, foreign policy has returned to the fore, so we have two Senators running for President, albeit one Senator has much less foreign policy experience than the other. In that sense, Senator Biden strikes me as a Democrat version of Dick Cheney in terms of an experienced foreign policy VP balancing a neophyte foreign policy President; however, just because Senator Obama is an approximate Democrat version of year-2000 Governor Bush in that respect, it doesn't mean the Bush-Cheney/Obama-Biden President-VP relationship is now the standard formula.

Assuming Senator McCain would handle his own foreign policy and survive at least his first term as President, Governor Palin seems better suited than McCain to handle the domestic aspects while comforting a Republican party that at times has been at odds with Senator McCain.

In terms of executive and legislative balance and foreign policy and domestic balance, the GOP ticket does seem more well-rounded at this point than the Dems ticket.

. . .

The Palin choice reflects Senator McCain's belief that he can run his own foreign policy and doesn't need a Cheney redux (Biden) as VP because unlike the last 2 Presidents (Bush Jr, Clinton) and the current Dem POTUS nominee, McCain trusts his own foreign policy experience. In that regard, McCain is more like President Bush Sr who also trusted his own foreign policy experience in a time of foreign policy need - remember, Bush Sr was elected during the Cold War - enough to add Dan Quayle as VP for other reasons.

The Palin choice, I believe, is meant to balance the GOP ticket where McCain is relatively weaker, not to create redundancies where McCain already is relatively stronger.

Here's an informative comment about Governor Palin at Chicagoboyz.

I'll reserve my final judgement on the suitability of Governor Palin until I learn more about her, but so far, she does seem like a good match as VP counterpart to McCain's POTUS, if not a replacement POTUS.

06SEP08 Update, my response to Tom Barnett's second post about McCain's VP pick:

* Andrew Fong said: "What concerns me more is that the vetting on Palin was almost non-existent -- e.g. witness the total surprise by the Alaskan. That doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on Palin, but it does reflect poorly on McCain."

It may be that I simply haven't been paying close enough attention, but what evidence is there that Senator McCain didn't sufficiently vet Governor Palin? I point this out because Dr. Barnett said something similar in his previous reaction post to the VP selection. Surprise on Governor Palin's part (aside: aren't beauty queens trained to express overly dramatic surprise upon victory?) doesn't mean Senator McCain didn't weigh his decision carefully, even if his 'gut' was part of that decision. So far, at least, and admittedly it's still early, Governor Palin seems to be a very good choice by McCain. Given that Governor Palin was a relative unknown, it can imply that McCain did *more* homework in order to decide on her. After all, Palin isn't the only woman GOP governor. (Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle at the GOP convention appealed more to me than Palin.) If it's true that McCain didn't do his due diligence, which doesn't ring true to me, than he's either very lucky or he has exceptional intuition working in his favor, not a bad trait in a dynamically changing world where we can't always rely on doing now as we've done before.

* Andrew Fong said: "McCain strikes me as the guy who's fond of big bold (symbolic) moves and doesn't like the day-to-day nitty-gritty -- e.g. loves the invasion, not too fond of the cleanup."

Wait a tic, Andrew . . . one of Senator McCain's strongest selling points is his advocacy of the 'Surge' and counterinsurgency strategy during a time when many pols, media, Bush admin, and military officials were advocating for an ASAP pull-out from Iraq. (See Michael Gordon's recent NY Times article about Bush's choice of the Petraeus-led 'doubling down' strategy change over many of his top officials' advice.) Andrew, 'Surge' and COIN = (belated) clean-up after the invasion. In contrast, many of the Dems and GOPers who voted for and supported the 2003 invasion - less based on Bush's case for war than our 12 year history with Iraq which had caused President Clinton to make regime change in Iraq our official policy by 1998 - subsequently turned against the post-war in Iraq. They - not Senator McCain - can fairly be accused of, as you describe it, loving the invasion but not being fond of the clean-up.

* UKBen said: "With Obama it's crystal clear that he will do a good job healing the badly damaged image of the US."

I'll buy that, but I'd like to draw upon Dr. Barnett's construction to ask a question regarding the perception of the candidates abroad. How do the Dems and GOP tickets play in the 'New Core' in contrast to how they play in the 'Old Core'? In large part due to my disappointment of NATO contribution in Afghanistan, building upon my disappointment in NATO during the 1990s, I wonder, which audience is it more constructive for us to please? Or asked in another way, does the prospect of Obama's "good job healing" include actual increased contributions by these nations or are we only talking about improved popular opinion polls? Which isn't to say I believe Senator McCain can draw more blood from a stone in terms of our 'Old Core' allies, but as a fan of Dr. Barnett, I am wondering in moving forward, who benefits our bottom-line more and how.

My short reaction to Palin is that I don't know her and am intrigued to find out why McCain picked her. So far, so good. I do find it curious that McCain is overtly positioning himself as a virtual Independent who's critical of the GOP, yet at the same time choosing a VP who energizes the GOP base. Although, Palin is known for taking on the Alaska GOP as an upstart, so perhaps Palin is energizing the GOP base as a reformer of the GOP, not as a GOP insider. I also believe McCain is choosing his VP according to a different POTUS-VPOTUS formula than the Dems. Obama's choice of Biden draws upon the Bush-Cheney POTUS-VPOTUS formula, where Obama's lack of confidence in his own foreign policy judgement demands redundancy in the foreign policy area. Whereas, McCain's choice of Palin reflects a division of labor formula. McCain trusts his foreign policy judgement as much as President Bush Sr trusted his foreign policy judgement during the closing of the Cold War, when Bush picked Dan Quayle as VP. Palin, a governor with grassroots, seems better suited to handle domestic and GOP base issues that probably don't interest McCain as much.

Furthermore, the McCain campaign made a smart move by choosing a governor, any governor. In my lifetime as an American, we've preferred to choose a governor for President, or at least a candidate with high-level executive experience, with good reason. We want a national leader who understands the bottom-line of CEO actions that effect all of us. As a New Yorker and (GOP-maligned) fellow-Obama Columbia alumnus, I know very little about Alaskan politics or Alaska in general, but from what I've heard, Palin has been an effective and popular governor in Alaska . . . even accounting for that huge oil-funded budget and low population she has had to work with. Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush Jr were all governors, while Bush Sr was an 8-year VP. Because Obama, McCain and Biden are all senators, McCain's choice of Palin becomes an effective GOP monopoly of executive experience during this election. Clever. Again, if Palin was an impulsive choice by McCain, he's got some impressive intuition.

Eric

Appreciate Bill Watterson

Bill Watterson is the cartoonist of 1985-1995 comic strip series Calvin and Hobbes.

This weekend, during some downtime after my cousin Jennifer's wedding, I picked up a few of my cousin James's Calvin and Hobbes anthologies. I have my own copies but haven't read mine in years. I was pleasantly surprised that Watterson's work is as endearing, broadly insightful, sophisticated, and accessible now as it was when I was younger. Almost thirteen years since its end, at least, Calvin and Hobbes has held up to the test of time in large part because Watterson's commentary was more philosophical and studied upon cultural, social-political, and human-condition themes rather than then-current events. I believe my appreciation is helped today because I'm roughly the same age now as Watterson was while he was in the middle of his run as the voice for Calvin and Hobbes.

Watterson protected the purity of his vision of his art despite ample commercial opportunities stemming from Calvin and Hobbes's popularity. He refused to sell out the fictional characters whose souls depended on him. By turning down the money, Watterson established a high standard of artistic integrity in a fundamentally commercial field.

Among the comic strips I've read, only Charles Schulze (Peanuts) and Berkeley Breathed (Bloom County) can be claimed to belong in Watterson's class.

Eric

GRE

I took the GRE yesterday, maybe for the first time, maybe for the last time if my scores are good enough as they are. My unofficial scores are 720 Verbal Reasoning and 650 Quantitative Reasoning (math). There's also an Analytical Writing section, which is scored on a 0-6 scale based on the average score of an issue essay and an argument analysis essay. I won't know my writing score until my official GRE report arrives in the mail.

Given that I scored 1530 on my SATs (790-V/740-M) and a 34 on my ACTs (36-V/32-M splits) while at USMAPS, I joke that going to Columbia made me stupid. I don't really believe that, though. Here are what I consider the real factors in my disappointing GRE score:

The totality of my studying for the GRE amounted to a cursory review of basic math concepts in my study guide right before I took the exam. I was rusty, to say the least. As my first GRE, I rationalized that I could treat it as a $140 test event, to use an Olympics term, to familiarize myself with the exam experience.

I believe I lost points in the GRE's new computer-based format. I didn't mind answering questions on a computer; it took some getting used to at first since I grew up on paper-based standardized exams, but it was a painless adjustment. I lost points because the new format didn't allow me to go back to a question after confirming an answer. On my previous standardized tests, like the SAT, I would routinely go back to questions I was uncertain about and change at least 2 or 3 of my answers. On the GRE verbal section, I had 10 minutes left at the end, which I would have used to check over my reading comprehension answers and puzzle over the harder vocabulary questions. On at least 1 math question, I realized the correct answer the second after I pressed 'confirm', but it was too late to change it. I suppose a test designed to adjust the questions after each answer can't work if we're allowed to go back and change answers.

I slept for 2 hours and not well before the exam. I felt alright at the start of the test, but once I started to tax my brain, I felt dazed. I don't believe my verbal score, except possibly the reading comprehension, was hurt much by lack of sleep, but my punchiness definitely degraded my math calculation speed and acuity. It seemed as though every time I looked up from my scratch paper after kneading my brain through even a relatively simple calculation, 4 minutes had passed when I could only afford to spend a minute-plus on a question. I don't know yet whether my lack of sleep hurt my writing score.

I underestimated the difficulty of GRE math. The people I asked told me that GRE math is no harder than SAT math. The study guide I used downplayed the difficulty further, even going so far as to claim the GRE used junior high school level math while taking into account students who take minimal math in college. My impression is that the GRE math section requires far more speed than the SAT and uses trickier questions. I ran out of time and left questions unanswered, and felt bewildered by too many of the questions. That said, I was rusty and sleepy, so it's possible my perspective was skewed; the key to answering a GRE math question is immediately understanding the question and recognizing the solution, which my brain was not equipped to do yesterday.

My 720 verbal score is lower than I would have liked. I don't know that I would score better with more sleep and preparation, though. The GRE reading comprehension questions were somewhat more advanced than their SAT equivalents and I would have spent more time on them if I knew beforehand how much time I would have left at the end of the section, but they weren't too hard to adjust to during the test. I believe scoring better would depend more on my luck with the vocabulary rather than better preparation. For example, I scored a 700 verbal on my SATs in high school and improved to a 790 verbal at USMAPS. I don't believe my verbal ability increased between the two SATs; I think I was just luckier with the questions.

My 650 math score feels like winning a bronze medal in the Olympics. I'm thankful it wasn't worse and it's an achievement given how poorly I thought I my score would be while taking the exam, but I'm disappointed I didn't do better.

If I use my first GRE experience, practice and study, and make sure to have a good night's sleep beforehand, would I score better if I took the GRE again? Yeah, probably. But, depending on my writing score, my first try at the GRE is respectable. When I receive my official scores, assuming my writing score is also respectable, I'll use them to apply to grad school and see what happens. If they're good enough for the schools, then they're good enough for me.

Update: I scored 5 out of 6 on the written portion. Yikes - I expected at least a 5.5.

Eric

The Traci log

Just now, while looking for another old file, which I didn't find, I found an e-journal I kept during my last months as a soldier. I had forgotten about it. It was originally intended to organize my thoughts while I prepared for my post-Army life. Not surprisingly, the e-journal became consumed by my drive to closure with Traci, instead.

Memory recall is not my strength, and memory tends to rearrange the furniture over time. That's why I'm posting my contemporary thoughts. Even in the "Traci log", unfortunately, there's a disappointing lack of 'show better than tell' details that obviously were fresh in my mind while writing the entries, but draw blanks now. It says in the e-journal I decided to give her a copy of the "Traci log". I don't know that I did, though - I think I may have left it in my pocket, just like I ended up not using the disposable camera I had brought with me. Or, maybe I gave her an edited version along with the rose. I don't remember.

The "Traci log" is posted here in its entirety - bad grammar, word choice, and spelling, spiteful jealousy and anger, and other unflattering insights about myself included. The exception is I'm redacting the names of persons who aren't already known from the learning curve. It's pathetic, embarassing stuff and in a more sober moment, I may decide the "Traci log" is too personal and take down the post, so read it while you can. Until then, enjoy:

November 17, 2000. 1:00 AM. K-16, Korea.

Traci is perfect. She is beautiful. 5’6 (a height in my love interests that seems to follow me) and healthily slim. Not skinny. She’s been an athlete. Long soft hair, good skin. Her eyes – wow. They are large and expressive; they’re soft. They shine. Her voice is soft. When I talk to her, I think girlfriend. I think I can listen to her for years. She has cute idiosyncrasies, in speech and in her behavior. She’s friendly and polite – that was my first impression (along with reserved). She’s smart. She gets it. She has often surprised me with ideas that are similar to mine. If I’m smart, then she has to be, too. She is caring. She is conscientious. She dresses neatly with good taste. She looks like a sophisticated young woman without being hard. She moves softly with some self-consciousness. She gives off an understated vulnerability, which can be a heavy attractant. She seems innocent and naïve, although she’s not. She is sensitive. She is concerned. She is humble. I don’t think she appreciates her own gifts, which I try to impress upon her. She is not presumptive. She questions. She has an extraordinary smile. Her eyes light up. Her face is lovely. She smiles easily. She is half Korean, but also half Chinese-American. She’s 21 year old. She’s left-handed.

The very first time we spoke, as I greeted her, after first day of ENG101, at the crosswalk between Main and South Post, I thought ‘this is the kind of girl I want as my girlfriend, but I’d never get her’. The first time we spent time together, at the bowling alley as she stopped me and said ‘hi’, I thought she was like me. She was polite and friendly, but reserved. I’m a loner but I can seem very sociable, so I thought “maybe”. I was amazed. Here was this incredibly attractive girl, who was spiking my senses, who I was intensely interested in, and she was like me? Was she alone and lonely, too? Had we found each other? People tell me that they think that I’m a great guy. Traci’s a great girl. Maybe, I thought, she’s the female equivalent of me. The idea seemed too good to trust, but it was so appealing. I was thinking we found each other.

I was wrong. Traci has such a strongly attractive aura, but that doesn’t mean she has the feeling I want her to have. She is a social person, unlike me, and she embraces all the social conventions of the Korean flinty insular group that I resent. I saw enough of them at Stuy, and they’ve always made me uncomfortable. She smokes a lot with them. She’s a different person and in another world with them, one that’s alien and threatening to me. She and I are something else together, when we’re alone with each other. She is something else with them. I’ll get into that.

I talk too much. I think, with Traci, a relationship may be something you slip into, not something you declare, like I did. If I was wiser, we could have slipped into one. I think too much, and I’m within myself too much, so I talk too much. My actions don’t nearly back up my words. Ideas threaten, and Traci is sensitive. As an attractive girl, she must be hardened in her defensiveness to amorous advances. I should have slipped in. But you know what? Yes, I talk too much with her, and I don’t like that because I’m not getting enough back from her when I dominate our time together. I talk too much because I can’t relax with her since we spend so little time together. I want to give her so much, and the little time she allows us is so precious to me. I’m scared, and I’m trying hard to be as good as I can be. I try to be my best with her, which hasn’t been necessarily helpful for me. She seems to warm up better to guys who are more imperfect than I am. Isn’t that a timeless truth? The lesser man always seems to get the girl. Yeats had that problem with Maude Gonne. She always went for the lesser man. I am a better man than ***, but she is so much more open and warmer to him than she is to me. She cares so much about him and he’s a punk. She becomes a punk-ette with her group. Am I just a little jealous?

Traci has her hard places within her. She treats me like shit now. It drives me nuts. I deserve her. That’s a strong statement, because I haven’t always thought I deserved someone as special as Traci. I deserve her. Read that over. Traci treats me like shit and I’m saying I deserve her? I know, I know. But I’m in love with her. I thought we would turn out completely different than we have. I was wild over leaving West Point when Traci and I first started seeing each other. My leaving West Point was my life. She made me feel that I could be happy with her, with who I am and that I didn’t need to fight. I could just be content living as I am – who I am was good enough for her. She seemed to offer a better, loving, easier way of life, where fighting was unnecessary. For Traci, I could give up the pain and tension in my life. What a promise. Instead, Traci has brought my fight with darkness back to me. I had hopes and fears. She has lived up to my fears.

Before Tim & Deborah - my failed and, in retrospect, pathetic gamble - the promise Traci held for my life in Korea as a friend was awesome. Her presence, her sympathy, her family. I’ve never had a large, loving family welcome me and I thought maybe the *** would. I could have had so much - the possibilities of a year with her and her family, as a friend, was the brightest prospect I’ve ever had, certainly one beyond any I could devise for myself. Her friendship was too valuable to gamble with, but I fell in love with her. What choice did I have then but to gamble? Looking back on my gamble, even with everything I lost by it, I don’t think I had a real choice. Traci is perfect. I would marry her if she felt the same way about me as I felt about her – I know that for a certainty. I would have fought for us to work. Still, the loss of her friendship was tremendous, and the price I’m still paying has exceeded the price I paid for Judy. I don’t regret my gamble, though. I don’t think I had a choice from the moment we talked after our first ENG101 class. I was attracted to her right away. The decision was made then, way before she stopped me in the bowling alley. I just didn’t know it yet.

I’m in love with Traci. How else can I put it? “I love her” doesn’t sound right. “I love” is more of an inherent truth, like I love my mom or my brother. “I love” is a deep strong bond that’s more of a Life state than a passionate feeling, like I have for Traci. I think a wife and husband can love each other, but young lovers are in love. Love versus passion? You can be both, maybe, but that’s a combination I can’t even imagine. Being in love is a burning sensitizing emotion. I’m in love with Traci. Looking at her stuns me. Hearing and listening to her stuns me. Being with her floods my mind, at least it did before I became cautious. Well, okay, being with her still floods my mind. I just haven’t been with her for so long.

Traci’s right that I haven’t seen all her faces. There’s the smart, sweet, and good face that I fell in love with. There’s the punk-ette face I see with her Korean friends. In that setting, *** rules and Traci follows him. Hm. I’ll think about that statement - it doesn’t seem quite right, either. There’s the stern face with her sisters. There’s the part of Traci that hurts me, and she is empathetic enough to know that she is hurting me, but that’s her face, too. There’s a part of her that tells people what to do, but it doesn’t come out when it’s just us. Is that part of her punk-ette face? I keep telling her, call me out when I make you uncomfortable, but she would rather go away. I don’t know about that part. There’s much about Traci I don’t know, and now, I don’t think I ever will. I wanted to learn everything about her. She didn’t let me.

I keep telling Traci, we can’t do – build - anything unless we spend time together. I can’t learn about her. We can’t grow our friendship. It seems, though, she would rather spend her time with other people. She’s more comfortable with other people than she is with me. She has been concerned with how I perceive her, not so much that I think well or badly of her, but that she is projecting intentions or an image that she is uncomfortable with.

My god, she is beautiful.

*** told me today to be a good husband. You know what? I will be a conscientious one. I know that. I will be a good husband and father. I’ll be a good boyfriend before that. Will I ever get to prove that to a deserving girl? I was ready to do everything for Traci. I’m still trying to live up that standard, for my love for her, if less for the girl who’s hurting me. I’m used to acting on fear, laziness and weakness. Those are my greatest obstacles to manhood. I’m trying to become a man and that can only be done by doing, not by talking. It’s hard but it’s the only way. Am I doing the right thing now with Traci by working to be there for her? I don’t know, but I’m doing it for my love for her. For what it’s worth, I’m doing my best. We’ll see. I’m holding up my end, at least. It’s Life and what I take with me.

Traci keeps telling me that she’ll try to be my friend. She said that she’d try after she unexpectedly split off from me after Tim & Deborah. She ignored me, but I met her outside the bowling alley. When we talked by the bowling alley, she said she’d be my friend. We talked again outside Gate 2, when she said she’d be my friend. We talked behind Dragon Hill Lodge, when she mostly said she’d be my friend. We talked on the phone at the beginning of the term and she said she’d be my friend. Each time, she seemed to make an initial effort but then split off again. She e-mailed me after the night at Gate 2, and again after we spoke on the phone at the beginning of this semester. She seemed to reach out for me a little. Now she treats me just like she did in the 2 months she ignored me. I was so afraid that she’d pull away again after I gave up what defense I had to help her, and now she has. Wow, it hurts. I know I’m not perfect, but I’ve tried to hold up my end and be there for her. So maybe she’s right. It’s not me. Traci keeps raising my hopes, deadly since I’m in love, and then she turns her back on me. When we’re together, I feel like we’re bonding, but then something happens when we’re apart and when she’s with her Korean friends. I’m very ready to get away from them and this whole damn mess. I see Rod’s point. Traci doesn’t have to be like them - I think she has so much more in her - but she chooses to be.

I e-mail her, and she ignores me. I ask her for things – her picture, her writings - and she ignores me. I ask her out. She says “yes” but then gives minimal effort to be there or just doesn’t show. She says we’ll be friends, but then ices me. Will we meet tomorrow? I don’t know. I really don’t. I hate that she pretends that the bad stuff doesn’t happen, since I make a special effort to be open and honest. She does the opposite – she hides and pretends. I’m so angry and hurt, but I keep myself with her, hurting myself, because I’m in love with her. She didn’t call me tonight. Why is she so soft to *** and so uncaring to me? I’m jealous, hurt and questioning myself. Don’t I deserve her? *** is a punk, yet she cares for him and not for me. I don’t know what to do.

It’s been a nightmare experience, almost a farce in its absurdly cliched progression. I was drawn out of the naïve cynicism I had and whatever protection it offered me. I opened myself to her completely. I made myself vulnerable. I trusted her. Before T&D, I couldn’t believe I had it so good with her – I thought Traci was dispelling all my cynical beliefs and reawakening a dream. She was late often when we met, but she came through each time, and I started to think I could become used to relying on her to come through. I refused to lose Traci because I was too cynical to accept her specialness. I wasn’t going to beat myself. I thought the worst that could happen was that Traci would turn me down and we’d still be friends. That’s how much I trusted her. But, no, it’s turned out badly. Strike Three, my worst case scenario, has been realized and then some. The cynical beast reigns and the devil’s laughing. Since Tim & Deborah, all my worst fears have come true. Taken away from the unbelievable dream-state and great prospect of what she’d add to my life, I’ve been dog-fighting and taking big hits. Since T&D, I’ve been fighting Traci herself to keep her in my life, and I know that’s a fight I can’t win. I don’t have a choice, and I’m being torn up. I have a dilemma now. I’m giving Traci my best, and she’s punishing me for it. How much more can I take before I turn to the dark side? The groundwork of cynicism was already laid in me before I met Traci, but I still had a thin hold on hope. I knew the risk of opening myself to a girl, and I was cautious with any relationship possibility. Now, to be hurt so bad by Traci seems to tell me that enough is enough. Is this a test? I gave up West Point when I hit my limit. How long can I hang in with Traci, especially when she’s the source of the hurt? What am I doing? What can I do?

Girls and other men. Why is it that every girl I desire choose, instead, to care for a man that disgusts me? Not Dora, really – I was too scared and insecure to try anything with her. Judy cared for ***, who was cold to her and hurt her. H gave herself to E the unapologetic asshole, even though he had rejected her already; she cut me from her life with no qualms. Traci has *** and ***, and who knows what other guys (Ha!). The trend: I am willing to give everything to Her yet I am the one who is thrown away thoughtlessly every time while I watch Her care for another man. I warned Traci what I was gambling for her, and it didn’t matter. Even my compromise was thrown away. The harder right is punished, and the devil’s laughing. I’m growing my own hard places.

I wanted to give Traci everything I am. I’ve been my best with her. I was ready to go all the way with her. I’ve done nothing wrong, I’ve tried for the best, and I’m being punished for it. I don’t understand. Is this journal my Traci log now? Why not.

November 19, 2000 Sunday 4:47 PM K-16

Why do I feel most jealous of ***? Because he’s an inoffensive guy and non-threatening to her. Most of all, she met him the same time she met me, yet they’ve spent much more time together than we have. She goes to meet him after work. When has she ever come to me? She feels they share a lot and can talk. They hang out. She feels comfortable with him and that they have a lot in common. She feels uncomfortable with me, and that she can’t relax. We do have a lot in common, actually, but those are the things she doesn’t like in herself and tries to avoid. She wants most to relax, and not to have to think, which I’m all about. The “drink” and “dance” bit. She has to think with me, but not with ***. She and *** helped him celebrate his birthday. On my birthday, Traci tried to avoid me. This is one of those cold truths that there’s no way to get around, to rearrange until it’s comfortable. She doesn’t want me; she prefers ***, she prefers *** – any guy but me.

If what she says is true – that being with me makes her uncomfortable – then that’s been true from the beginning. I opened up with her and have given her everything in me. That would explain why she hasn’t sought me out, why I’ve had to practically drag her out. She didn’t want to spend time with me.

I tried my best to uphold the compromise of being her friend as long as I didn’t have to hide my feelings for her. After T&D, I went to her with the compromise, even though the rejection still hurt. I was aware that we had a deadline with my DEROS, and I resolved to make the most of our limited time. My bottom-line was for Traci to be in my life, even if she didn’t feel for me as I did for her. The ball game for which she stood me up, and everything else I wanted us to do together, was for the compromise. I sacrificed my pride and my goals for us so I could be with her. Traci never met me halfway and she pulled away. Breaking the silence, working to help her keep her ENG294 phone pledge to me – I tried to keep her in my life. I did right by Traci, and I’m proud of that.

I’m in love with Traci. I’m more in love with her now after she opened up to me on Friday. She’s wrong. She is everything I think she is. She keeps proving it every precious minute I spend with her. She amazes me. It’s just that where I think hard now to prepare me for the next iteration of my life (this is my life now – it’s game starting on April 14th), she wants to relax and have fun. I’m trying to become selfish to take an active role in shaping my life. I’ve been trying to get what I want and for Traci to be who I want her to be. It’s time for me now to take care of her, though. If that means I need to remove myself from her life, I need to take care of her. That doesn’t mean I need to twist myself like I did for Judy (I hope), but I need to make her the priority.

We can be great together, but we’re in two different places in our lives. If *** and *** are what she needs in her life right now, then I have to be supportive of that.

If she’s coming to Maryland, then suddenly, we have possibilities beyond Korea. Or maybe we don’t. But that doesn’t change that I’m in love with her.

Nov 24, 2000

I worry. I’ve told her that my bottom-line is that I’m in love with her. It is, but there’s another bottom-line: Strike Three. Traci’s every action and pronouncement supports Strike Three. My hurt and anger support Strike Three. I’m alone in fighting for my love and it’s hard. I’m not that strong.

I see my life as a hard fight, a la Yeats, one that I can’t win. It’ll be filled with frustration and the grim acceptance that my views are in a severe minority. My every gain will be hard-earned and will disappear when I leave the fight. It’s the only way I have to live, unless I can find that anchor in the light - a truth - a special place that can be the origin of a better perspective. A dream embodied. Yeats fought 25 years to make Maude Gonne that anchor in the light and failed. Traci has everything to be that special woman for me. She could change my life and make it happy and successful. Everything in me says she’s right, she’s the one and that we should work. The reality has been all Strike Three, though. I’m taking this one to the bitter end, which means April 14th for now. But, what if she comes to the US? Will she become my Maude Gonne? Will I have a choice? How can I not fight for her when I have so much to gain if I succeed? Whoa.

Dec. 11, 2000

I gave her family my Christmas card. I really am exposed to the ugly side of her now. I didn’t believe her capable of it, but I see ugliness swirling into my vision of her. I think partly because I’ve been so forceful in my course, I’ve pushed Traci to react ugly. She doesn’t want to be the bad guy and I’m making her feel like one – so she’s angry with me. She has a sense of what’s comfortable for her, and I’m on another wavelength. I call her out. I’m honest, but I also try to be a good guy. She can’t deal with me on my terms, and I can’t get close to her compromise point – if she has a compromise point. Even now, I really don’t know that there was ever any place for me to go in her mind where we could compromise. I went as far for her in my compromise as I could. At the same time, I worked to preserve my love and the promise of her.

Remember *** in AIT? Half Korean, half white. Pretty girl, fresh and innocent seeming, a year younger than me – 20 to my 21. She would have been my dream girl in high school. After she reported me for a social action – after I did the honorable thing - I nudged myself into her life as much as I could. I was vindictive and I derived a bitter pleasure from the experience. With Traci, I feel only sorrow. It’s a thorough hurt and there’s no place in it for revenge. Traci embodied my best dream, the only one that really counts, and she turned into a nightmare.

What’s up with (half) Korean girls?

Realistically, I never had a chance with Traci. The thought of that hurts because it strikes at the foundation of who I am. She’s a better version of herself with me - I believe that. She’s more comfortable as the other Traci, though, and ultimately, it’s her choice. I wasn’t supposed to ever have to fight her. I thought Traci would put aside everything about me that fights - the fire that drives but also destroys. I thought she would bring light and peace to my life. The day I realized I had to fight to keep her, I also knew that I didn’t have a choice. But, right there, I lost. My dream was already dead, but I fought for it even so. All I did was draw out the inevitable, but, hey, I gave her everything I had, didn’t I? I fought the good fight. That’s cool in its own way. The stakes were real here, though. How could I have been so wrong about her? If I did my best, what happened? How could we have gone so wrong? I don’t understand.

There’s a lesson here that I don’t want to learn. I can tell myself what I could have done better, but then I remember how quickly she gave up on us the first time with T&D. How much did I have to fight to keep her in my life? Did I ever have a chance? How about her broken promises?

How about the experience with the yukata and the other gifts I brought from Japan? Remember how happy I was choosing those gifts? I feared the possibility of a negative reaction from Traci – I joked with Rod how she’d be disgusted that I would even think of giving her a gift. He said I was being too pessimistic and to have more faith. I even prepared a defense of my gifts that I hoped I wouldn’t have to use. My heart dropped when Traci reacted exactly as I feared, and I used my defense. I even spent 25 dollars on a taxi from the airport the day before, knowing full well how to take the subway, so I could see her as soon as I returned to Korea, but she wouldn’t have it. When I saw her on Saturday, she was at the bowling alley when she was supposed to be at home. As I mentioned before, she left me short to go to ***’s birthday. I fought to spend my birthday with her, and I didn’t get any gift from her. I gave myself a birthday present - that Saturday and (too many) hours into that Sunday just to be with her. I wanted to spend time with Traci so much, I was scared what would happen with us after I left, and I didn’t want to volunteer to leave her. I imposed myself on her to the point of nuisance. It’s sick, but that’s what passion can become when it’s desperate and twisted.

My jealousy. My anger. My frustration. My cynicism. I was at Strike Two when we met and I put everything on the line for her. I warned her. I gave her a speech early on informing her of my weaknesses. In my way, I told her that I needed her to take care of me because I was exposing my vulnerabilities to her. I took the chance - I fell in love with her.

*** called me a mother’s dream Significant Other for their daughters. A curse upon me, huh? I can’t put myself on the line like this anymore. Okay. I can do it one more time if I believe this rationalization. H isn’t really a strike because I wasn’t emotionally invested in her … too much. She was just a blatant case-in-point, so I’m really still on Strike Two. Judy and Traci are my strikes. For everything I did for them, neither fought for me. Judy actually did more for me than Traci has, although Traci allowed me to open up to her much more. Fooled me, didn’t it? I’ve seen women dig deep for other guys, and that doesn’t happen for me. I’m 24, almost 25, and I’ve never had a girlfriend. I think that to keep a woman in my life I need to be perfect, which is impossible. I am far from perfect, and even as I strive for perfection for a woman, my room for error continually decreases. I’ve been shocked at how quickly I’ve been abandoned by my love interests, especially when I felt so keenly how much I fought for them. I felt betrayal. I relied on them and when I most needed them, they left me. For all my sacrifice and work, where’s my reward?

Anger. I feel anger. *** thanked me for the Christmas card. She knows. Traci and I have had chances. I stayed the course. Traci repeated her pattern, though, and we became uglier with each cycle. She doesn’t like to be pushed and I pushed her. Tough, Traci. Suck it up. You were weak and you lost a man with potential who would have been a better man for you and because of you. I needed her to be strong - she wasn’t. Will she still surprise me? No, I don’t even fantasize about it anymore. The possibility is a dim small light now. Personally, I’m in limbo now. West Point, then Traci. Hell of a sequence. Dropping out of West Point is still either a good decision that will work out for the best or the worst decision I ever made. What West Point taught me is that there are decisions and situations that are life-changers, the forks in the road, and I need to recognize them. I went after Traci maybe too hard. Still, what of the idea that if she was interested in me, we would have worked, no matter how many “mistakes” I made? Yeah.

December 15, 2000

My leave starts today. We exchanged Christmas cards. I gave Traci one via the *** family on Monday. The *** family gave me one via her and *** on Wednesday. There was a time when the card would have made me joyous, but she’s still icing me, she’s dismissed me from her life, and once again, she did something positive for me only after I pushed the concept onto her.

Fate. I’ve looked for trends / patterns that indicate I didn’t have a chance, but what about Fate? Romantics like to point out how Fate worked in their favor – how two lovers united only because so many factors came together for them to do so. Well, so many factors seemed to work for Traci and me, but one brutal sequence worked against us. And then, of course, her chain of thought on her own and with her comrades worked against us. There may have been a chance that first day of class of ENG102, but she wouldn’t come to me. I think I could have gone to her still that day, but not after that. Then, of course, the corrosive erosive cancerous intrusion of *** and *** was already in place. Traci made up her mind about us definitely after that, and their friendship burgeoned. I relied on her, not wanting to form the relationship in my own mind, and she failed me. She made her choice. I wonder, if I had held us together through that patch, though, would we have made it? We won’t play by each other’s rules, and she has different faces. The faces that I fell in love with are still there. What of next year, with her (maybe) at UMD at College Park and me (bigger maybe) at Columbia? Will Fate work with us then?

January 25, 2001. Thursday. 12:10 AM. K-16, Korea.

I’ve been hurt, and the wound is deep. With Judy, I still had my reserve – a cushion. I preserved myself in it. Traci and the absolute length I went in trying for her shattered that cushion. The foundation of my beliefs feels broken. I can’t even talk to girls with any romantic inclination right now. I harnessed everything I had for Traci, and the more I tried, the worse it became. I’m not sure how to describe what’s inside me now. There’s kind of a stunned emptiness where no emotion can take hold.

Where’s my naivete now? Where’s my faith?

A metaphor:
They marched grandly into battle, a beautiful army of hope and dreams. Rank after rank of young men charged, shattering on the iron flanks. They disappeared under that awful truth, their idealism no match for the cold reality. Still, they charged forward. Whatever was left of them left their faith upon the battlefield at the end of the day. The survivors resembled nothing of the army that had begun the day, their scarred bodies only empty husks of their former selves.

March 11, 2001. Sunday. 10:31 P.M. K-16, Korea.

How many more entries will I put in here? I see Traci on Saturday, well maybe. If she doesn’t opt out (read: stand me up) again, we will see each other. I’m going to give this journal to her, vague sentence structures and all. This is a rough-cut, but it’s honest. Am I too tough on *** (i.e., all the “punk” refs) in my earlier entries? Yeah, probably, but I am jealous, and she did say outright she chose her crew over me. So, fuck it. This isn’t about prudence and beauty (or grammar). This is about honesty and openness. A man fights for his place, and I’ve surrendered too much in my life. I gave up West Point. I surrendered Traci without much of a fight, didn’t I? Love is war, and I’m a soldier. I should know that in love only victory can be considered a success. I am not yet a warrior, but I will be, like my father before me, like my son someday will be. I’ve delayed myself long enough.

Saturday. I asked her out. That’s step one. What do I expect? No fairy tales. There’s nothing I can do to change the situation. I don’t expect Traci to do anything outside of the pattern she has set. I think our story has already been told. In other words, I don’t have hope for my dream to survive just because we’re seeing each other one more time. She’s made up her mind about us and put me into her past. I’m going to give her her Namsam tower water bottle, this journal, a flower and then ask for an explanation. I don’t know what else I can get from her. I feel sad.

Fact: I am in love with Traci. Fact: She would have changed my life to something more simple and beautiful. Seeing her on Saturday won’t change those opinions, or the hurt of her not loving me back. We would have been a great couple. Seeing her one last time is for myself, for pride, for the right thing and along the lines of maybe being a man someday. I need to trust my instincts more, if for no other reason than that I need to be more active in defining my life. I need to remind myself how good we felt, how right and simple we were, and how optimistic I was, before T&D. Traci and I have become ugly, but we weren’t always that way.

Right now, I’m afraid of e-mailing her because I think that she’ll cancel on me if I do. Isn’t that sad? Past experience, you know. No news is good news, but of course, she’s stood me up before, too. She can stand me up again.

You know what *** said to me recently? She said that I’d be a great father, because I’m so concerned. Nice of her, wasn’t it? I have so much potential in me, but I’m weak. I’m not perfect, maybe not even great, but I have enough gifts for one man, more than my fair share even. But, I need to be man enough to become worthy of my gifts. Lend me strength. I hoped Traci would be my strength. I see a pained lonely, dark, maybe dangerous path – a fight - if I go into my future alone. Things are looking ugly for me right now. I tested myself with Traci and found myself wanting. Traci would have given me light and comfort and happiness. I worry about myself. I know what happened at West Point. I know where I drew the hard line on my own limits, and I’m planning on putting everything I have into attacking that line. Just like I put everything I had into attacking my limits with Traci, right? Yeah, and I lost. More - I should have done more. I should have been better, smarter, stronger. But what else could I have done? I couldn’t afford to lose Traci, but I also couldn’t sell myself out for her. There was no easy way out, and I tried to compromise. The only good outcome was the one I gambled for, and when it fell away, when Traci couldn’t deal with my compromise, there was no way out for me. You know what? That’s a good lesson. That’s real life, not my dream version of it. I need to learn that lesson. I gambled, I lost, and I’m paying the price. Simple as that.

A man without scars is no man. Well, I have my scars, but I don’t have Traci. I lost her. In the end, all of my dreams and hopes of us came to so little. I have lessons to learn in what happened. I must learn how to fight. I’m in love and that’s special. My feelings for her is the positive I’ll take away with me.

I’m babbling and I’m sleepy. I’m not forgiving Traci. I’m in love with her, but I’m hurt, and there’s a debt. She can make up that debt to me if she wanted to. I’ll give her that open chance. If she wanted to. What happens with us now is completely up to her.

Why must Traci pretend? Is that a girl thing? Does she read my e-mail? Girls aren’t warriors. They’re more defenders, and they fight dirty. I’ve always hoped to get back what I gave to her. I thought that was the fair way, the right way. Hasn’t worked out. I don’t want to take or trick what I want from a girl, but is that the only way I can get what I want? Many men, and most women (by deed if not by word), answer “yes”. I ain’t talking about sex, either. I’m talking about love. Sang, in Korean terms. I don’t know what I’m going to do.

March 14, 2001. Wednesday. 12:10 AM. K-16, Korea.

I’ve checked my e-mail every night in fear that she has cancelled on me. I’m happy that she hasn’t, but she may not have just from a lack of any thought about me. She may cancel Friday, or she may just not show up.

I’m so looking forward to seeing Traci and just knowing that we’re with each other. A childish part of me leaps with joy at the prospect. I feel that way, even with the hurt and anger, and even though I know that the reality is that I’m saying good-bye. Yes, I still hope that we have a future, but I can’t do anything about it. Why am I doing this on March 17th, instead of, say, April 7th? Because I’m still hoping Traci will change her mind, and I’m giving her a month of me in Korea to act if she does. Hope can be pretty tough. Whether there is a ‘we’ in the future is up to her now. I could try to push her still, but it would be the wrong thing to do. I’ve shown her my heart, even the angry, dark side of it. Meeting her is dangerous for me. The only protection I have is an emotional scar and I’ve ripped it away for this last act. All I can think about right now is meeting her. What will happen to me when I’m actually with her? I’ll have to deal with that as it comes. I want to forgive her, but will she let me? Maybe in the States, but we’ll have different lives then.

I think that’s it for this mini-journal. Traci, I fell in love with you. I’m still in love. We could have been great. I’m going now, though. This part of my life is ending.

March 17, 2001

Well, that’s it. We met. We argued. It’s over.

08 APR 01

I bowled league last night. Traci is bowling in the Saturday league now - she didn’t know I’d be there. Interesting. She has a guy, a Filipino, with whom she was very soft and close. They held and stroked hands. She ignored me, of course. The pattern completed itself last night. Don’t tell me that stories aren’t told in life. This was too perfect – beginning to end – too many significant “accidents”. Why do I feel numb, almost resigned? I see *** tomorrow, she of the pretty eyes. Don’t take it out on her.

November 27, 2004 NYC

Traci called a man seeking a relationship a “court” (noun form, like a “run”). She told me she didn’t realize what I was doing with her was a “court”. Not a revelation. Just reading this journal and a memory came back of one of her particular words and an idiosyncrasy.

Eric