Jan. 15, 2007

Want a Job? Sorry, It’s Too Risky

It’s no surprise that the University of California at Santa Cruz’s redwood-studded campus wouldn’t exactly be what you would call friendly territory for the military recruiters who annually march through its throngs of protestors to take their seats for otherwise innocuous job fairs. The anti-war protesters there gained national attention in 2005 when MSNBC reported that the Pentagon was monitoring peaceful anti-war efforts – including a “counter-recruitment” effort at Santa Cruz, deemed a “credible threat” in the spring of that year. The UCSC Students Against War group (which characterizes itself as “a ‘credible threat’ to militarism” on its Web site) has been out in full force at campus job fairs ever since.

Looking for a job?

See all 193 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,602
Administrative: 2,156
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But this past week, the university’s administration determined that the protest activity, which it had defended when news of the Pentagon’s intelligence gathering surfaced, had gone too far. Campus leaders canceled a job fair scheduled for January 31 “to ensure the safety of all students, staff and invited guests.” Under the Solomon Amendment, unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in March, the administration maintains that it would have to extend invitations to military recruiters to any large-scale job fair — thereby, if recent history is any indication, essentially inviting protests — in order for the university to remain eligible for federal funds.

“Our campus has a strong tradition of supporting free speech, the right to demonstrate peacefully, and fundamental respect for the opinions of others,” a university statement reads. “However, during the last two years, nearly every quarter has included events in which a few individuals chose to push their protests beyond civility and safety, challenging our Principles of Community and disrupting events to the detriment of others in the campus community.”

”The campus takes seriously its responsibility to protect the safety of the entire campus community, and we will continue our policy of using law enforcement to deal with all actions that threaten public safety.”

While several student leaders say they support the indefinite postponement of this month’s fair, they join the student protestors in condemning the administration’s readiness to blame students for the escalation in protest activity, and its reliance on police to deal with protests.

Jean Marie Scott, associate vice chancellor for student affairs at UC Santa Cruz, said that the escalation in protest activity began about two years ago, in spring 2005 (at the “credibly threatening” event, in the government’s eyes). At that point, she said, a large number of students rushed the entrance to the room where the job fair was held, pushing people out of the way and injuring one staff member in their haste. “People were essentially running and scattering and equipment was scattering. That was the first time that we’d experienced students on our campus physically acting out that resulted in injury,” Scott said.

The same thing happened during the following spring’s career fair, when students tried to force their way into the fair and, in the process, pinned several staff and faculty members into a corner, Scott said. Most recently, she explained, demonstrators threw produce during a protest of a Board of Regents meeting in October, and, when individuals were hustled out of the building where the regents were meeting, “it became quite a disarray of arms flying and the police trying to safely get the community members through the crowd. It was quite frightening.” (A Students Against War member, Janine Carmona, described the Board of Regents meeting protest, which included surrounding the building’s exits, as a call for a more democratic university governing process in California).

Scott said that the two Santa Cruz students who were arrested at the Board of Regents protest are currently in the university’s judicial system. A “Dialogue on Campus Activism” is scheduled, and the administration is currently awaiting the findings of a task force appointed in the fall to “evaluate demonstration response protocols and recommend future courses of action.” The administration has also attempted to reach out to some of the active anti-war protestors, Scott said, asking them, “How can the administration best support your voice, and you and your convictions, but do so in a way that doesn’t take away or disallow someone’s ability to do business on campus?”

“Unfortunately, the students who are involved feel very strongly that it’s not about anyone else’s rights; it’s just about their desire to keep the military from attending any of the career fairs on campus,” Scott said.

But student leaders say the administration isn’t telling the whole story. “It’s only a few isolated students that do these actions, but even those actions, do they warrant pepper-spraying, does it warrant the bludgeoning of students?” Ray Austin, a senior and chair of UCSC’s undergraduate governing body, the Student Union Assembly, asked in reference to the fall protest at the Board of Regents meeting (The San Francisco Chronicle’s account of the demonstration, including the alleged pepper-spraying and beating, can be found here). “It’s kind of one-sided when you say there was a staff member who was shaken up, then you have a student who was dragged on the ground, had blood gushing from his head and was deported,” Austin said of an exchange student from abroad who he alleged was clubbed by police.

Berra Yazar, a fourth-year Ph.D. student and president of the Graduate Student Association, said that, for the most part, students show up to protest peacefully, and there end up being “a couple people who are little bit more forward, so vegetable-throwing was one example.”

“The administration needs to be a little bit more adept at determining who is being more violent in that group,” she said.

“I feel the loss of the job fair as a loss of opportunity for UCSC students. I think it’s unfortunate that the administration is more concerned with stifling student protests than giving students the opportunity to interact with potential employers,” said Janine Carmona, a junior and member of Students Against War, which she said generally attracts anywhere from 20 to 50 students to its meetings. Carmona, who describes herself as a student of Gandhi and a Quaker, said that the group embraces non-violence, but believes that it’s important for their protests to be open: “Of course not everybody’s going to be at the same level in their study of nonviolence as everyone else.”

“We, what we plan, and our goals, are always non-violent.”

Carmona, who embraces the tactic of using one’s body to block the military recruiters’ access to students on campus, said that since soldiers are restricted from expressing their free speech rights, “It’s not the recruiters’ free speech that we’re limiting; it’s the government’s policies.” She cited the military’s discrimination against gay people, and a desire to end war by limiting recruiters’ access to potential soldiers — at least at any university-sanctioned events — as two reasons for the protests. “If we’re going to live by these ‘Principles of Community’ in these institutions of higher education, are we going to make an exception for the military? How is that valid? The government is forcing the administration to allow for this exception, but we as students don’t have to allow it.”

A university spokesman said it was unclear when another job fair would be held, and Scott affirmed the university’s commitment to providing students with career services through other avenues in the meantime. “A lot of people are going to miss out on the opportunity to interact with potential employers, but they’d be missing out on it anyway,” said Yazar, the Graduate Student Association president. “Most career fairs over the past three years have been dysfunctional anyway. There’s no reason for the university to take on the additional expense and endanger students.”

— Elizabeth Redden

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Maybe it’s me, but if you’re against war, shouldn’t you do your best to not start another one?

Collective behavior....don’t trust it.

kgotthardt, at 8:20 am EST on January 15, 2007

Non-violent force

The UCSC student who is quoted defending anti-war protesters as ‘non-violent’ in their goals is none-the-less an advocate of initiating force against those with whom she disagrees.

Among some advocates of non-violence, “the tactic of using one’s body to block” one’s opponent is considered morally permissible—even commendable. Furthermore, according to this view, to forcibly remove someone engaged in such blocking is to use violence. This view accomplishes a moral inversion in which the attacker is considered to be engaging in non-violent, moral action and the defender is considered to be engaging in violent, immoral action.

The initiation of the use of force, non-violent or otherwise, is a criminal act and should not be excused or tolerated.

John W. Bales, Professor at Tuskegee University, at 9:45 am EST on January 15, 2007

Otter said it best

From “Animal House,” to “Dean Wormer” —

O: “Unfortunately, all it takes is a few bad apples —”

W: “Put a sock in it, son.”

Good to see, absurdity is still rampant, on campus. The few employers who would tolerate UCSB’s anti-working class attitude and possibly interview my niece are now being totally chased off. Great.

B.D., at 10:00 am EST on January 15, 2007

Professor Bales is right. The student protestors who initiate force against others and claim to be acting in a non-violent manner, then claim that people who respond with force to their use of force, are making a moral inversion. A psychologist might call it projection.

Whatever their reasoning, they won. They got the Santa Cruz job fair cancelled, thus showing the whole campus who’s the boss at their university.

Jack Olson, at 10:01 am EST on January 15, 2007

oh, the hilarity

Professor Bales is wrong. “The initiation of the use of force, non-violent or otherwise, is a criminal act and should not be excused or tolerated.” I am trying to figure out what sort of non-violent force he is referring to. Perhaps he means that if someone blocks a door, or links arms, they are “using force.” Alas, they are actually not assaulting anyone. So, unless you consider the act of going to a certain place, and perhaps, not leaving to be “force” (just like a robbery requires a use of force) this argument is stretched. Of course, they might be violating another statute, but you wouldn’t be able to find a “force” element if their only “force” is staying put and not moving.

The whole thing is a little silly. To my knowledge, there has never been any actual violence associated with don’t-ask-don’t tell policies. I guess from a PR-point of view, it reduces headlines.

Although I have seen many examples of the use of “Safety” as a justification to restrict civil liberties (namely free speech), this probably is not the issue here since 1) the government doesn’t have First amendment rights per se; and 2) FAIR v. Rumsfeld was not resolved on First amendment grounds.

Finally, there probably is no need for civil disobedience. The students can accomplish their goals though non-violent means. They actually probably do have a sympathetic ear from their legislators.

BD, UCSB grads get jobs. They always will. To my knowledge nobody really discriminates against people from well-ranked schools because of politics. Of course, if the school took a dive in the rankings, it might become an excuse. As a rule, most colleges are – and should be – anti-working class. The entire point of a college education is to avoid being part of the working class. In fact, it would be a shame for a college grad to have to take a job where he or she would work side by side members of the working class. Nothing wrong with that.

Larry, at 11:10 am EST on January 15, 2007

My hope: That the unruly protesters will get the targets right.

Protest recruiting by the financial interests that enable and profit off of war, pestilence and famine. Picket and protest recruiters from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey.

In the supply chain, if the situation has arrived at where the military needs to recruit, the situation has gone too far. When I suggest this to bright students, including down the street at Harvard, I get a “deer in headlights’ look. What?

Which perhaps means I am too late, too, on the education supply chain with this suggestion.

Wick SloaneThe Devil’s Workshop, Inside Higher Education

Wick Sloane, at 12:35 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Short-Sighted

Though I’m against the Iraq war, it seems like techniques like those used at UCSC are counter-productive— whatever these protesters seem to think they’re gaining in visibility in the short-term, in the long run they’re alienating their fellow students. I can imagine many people might be sympathetic to their political agenda but resent the idea that disrupting their job interview with Apple is somehow going to topple the military-industrial complex.

Adrian, at 12:35 pm EST on January 15, 2007

“what” belongs on a college campus

The issues surrounding student protests of miliatry recruiters raise uncomfortable questions about what events and what personnel, advocating what activites are indeed appropriate on a university campus. I am deeply uncomfortable with the vision of soldiers recruiting students at my college campus — students, many of whom are poor, and who possess very limited job prospects, as they are lacking in both expertise and connections in the private (or public) sector.

But if we aren’t going to allow the military to recruit on campuses, then what about companies whose track record is suspect? Should Walmart be allowed to have a booth on a college campus? What about corporations/law firms/ hospitals and businesses that use or encourage sweatshop labor, encourage discrimination and/or are in fact guilty of discriminatory practices in hiring/firing/promotion?

To be honest, I am not at all convinced that college fairs have a place on a college campus, although I recognize that such events are attractive and probably even useful to students (particulary ones like mine). But where do we draw the line, as to who can come and who cannot? The campus protests point in these directions — that if everyone can come, then that’s a real ethical sticking point, and if everyone can’t, then who decides and who — on a public campus — can justify it to the higher ups, who are — like it or not — cathected with both federal governemnt and big business?

I think we should draw the line somewhere, but I’d be interested in hearing from others, as to how these distinctions might be worked out.

Stephanie Hammer, UC Riverside, at 12:50 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Larry makes a distinction without a difference. By his definition, the protestors who didn’t assail the job recruiters didn’t use force against them, they merely physically obstructed them.

By Larry’s definition, the police are not using force against you when they lock you in the back of the police car. They are merely physically obstructing you from leaving, though they do so without using force, like the protestors who physically obstruct you from attending a job fair.

Such a definition defies common sense. If physically obstructing somebody doesn’t amount to using force, then a prison inmate who isn’t being beaten isn’t held by force. I wonder how many prison inmates would agree with that.

Jack Olson, at 1:31 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Have we forgotten non-violent resistance?

I wonder what some of the esteemed colleagues on this comment thread would’ve said to the freedom riders, the de-segregation activists who occupied lunch counters and Rosa Parks who broke the law with her body, kids who burned draft cards and blocked entrances a’plenty during Vietnam.

All these tactics are now being called “violent” even though they are the essence of non-violent resistance. Have you people no shame? 700,000 Iraqis are dead, 3000 troops are dead. Is the best you can do sitting here finger-wagging a bunch of University students who have the gut to protest injustice when they see it?

Jolson, at 3:15 pm EST on January 15, 2007

“At that point, she said, a large number of students rushed the entrance to the room where the job fair was held, pushing people out of the way and injuring one staff member in their haste. “People were essentially running and scattering and equipment was scattering. That was the first time that we’d experienced students on our campus physically acting out that resulted in injury,” Scott said.

“The same thing happened during the following spring’s career fair, when students tried to force their way into the fair and, in the process, pinned several staff and faculty members into a corner, Scott said. Most recently, she explained, demonstrators threw produce during a protest of a Board of Regents meeting in October, and, when individuals were hustled out of the building where the regents were meeting, “it became quite a disarray of arms flying and the police trying to safely get the community members through the crowd. It was quite frightening.”

Contrary to the false contention posted above, these actions are not only assault, they are full-fledged assault and battery. This is a very basic matter of criminal and tort law with which any first year law student would be familiar. Anyone involved in such criminal offenses should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law and expelled from the university.

A good civil suit or two would also help these thugs understand the difference between expression protected by the First Amendment and criminal assault and battery.

JBM, at 3:15 pm EST on January 15, 2007

For one, I am very appalled that some users have commented that SAW wanted the Job Fair cancelled, because that is a misconception. I am a student at UCSC and have been participating with SAW for the past few weeks. Did you know that we attempted to set up our own fair, an alternate military free fair? Unfortunately, the University cancelled not only ours, but their own job fair. As I switch from speaking as an activist to a student, I must say I am appalled that they would cancell MY job fair. UCB has 8.. yes count them 8 job fairs in one semester. Where as UCSC has only 2 each year. SAW is also a NON-VIOLENT group. I find it quite ironic that the University said in there letter on cancellaton that they have always incouraged free speech, when in fact, what they have done with this Job Fair cancellation has in fact prevented our protesting. If you don’t want us to use our rights, then don’t teach them to us. The protesting planned on that day was geared towards the military, WE the people, the students of Santa Cruz are opposed to the war. Whats so bad about that? Letting them know our thoughts? I could go on a rampage for forever. On an ending note, I wanted to leave you with this thought. The University has said there is “violence.” Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen it has been violence from the police to the students. Maybe for once the cops can be there to protect us, the students, on our own campus!

Sarah Starr, SAW did not want the job fair cancelled, at 3:15 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Larry writes, “In fact, it would be a shame for a college grad to have to take a job where he or she would work side by side members of the working class.”

I am not sure what Larry considers the “working class,” since most people who are employed indeed do work (with some exceptions), but if college grads come out of school unwilling and/or incapable of working with people of all classes, they seriously limit their job options. What teacher, for example, doesn’t work with students and school personnel in the “working class"? Graduating from college shouldn’t provide classist insulation from the rest of the world; it should better prepare students to work effectively with a variety of people within and throughout the world.

Finally, unless there is stringent criteria in selecting participants for a career fair, the military should not be excluded. While I do not approve of some tactics used by military recruiters, I do not approve of some used by college recruiters, either; and as another poster puts it, if you aren’t going to ban questionable corporations, banning the military doesn’t seem fair. Schools concerned about who gets invited might try limiting the scope of the fair. For example, they might hold a computer programming fair or a public education fair in which participants come from a relevant industry.

For the students that DO have an issue with the military and other fair participants, there are ways to protest that do not include violating someone else’s rights and/or inciting a riot.

kgotthardt, at 3:20 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Banning Protest at Santa Cruz

Once again, a university is banning a counterrecruitment protest—an error made even worse by banning an entire career fair. And then the administration has the audacity to blame the protestors for it all. If there is a danger from trying to keep students out of a career fair, then the simple solution is to let the students in, and let them protest. If the protest exceeds the rules, then individual protestors can be punished or even arrested. But to preemptively ban an entire event because of the threat of a protest is both ridiculous and repressive.

John K. Wilson, at 4:45 pm EST on January 15, 2007

“WE the people, the students of Santa Cruz are opposed to the war. Whats so bad about that? Letting them know our thoughts? I could go on a rampage for forever.”

The last remark here answers the question in the second sentence. Students are best off learning how to think and communicate dissent constructively, not to “go on a rampage forever” when they don’t like something in life.

I’ve got news for them: They will be rampaging until the day they die because there will always be things in life that they will not like. The university should be teaching the kids how to grow up and deal with problems like adults, not to threaten society with indefinite rampages whenever they feel unhappy about something.

JBM, at 4:50 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Mr. Olsen, To the extent that someone is put into a police car (or in jail), force may have been used when they were put there. However, in general, arresting someone and putting them in a police car is legal, itself, and the use of force is privileged.

JBM, I seriously doubt that the US is going to sue the students for assaults upon their recruiters. However, in California, in the criminal context, assault merges into “battery” which is the “willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”

Kgotthardt, Setting aside whether the military can be excluded or not (as this issue gets more complicated every day, even post F v. R), “working class” generally refers to people that work with their hands. Usually in factories. Usually for little remuneration (though, strangely enough, often for more than college grads). While it is all well and good to tell college students to respect people, a college education is considered the passport to not working with one’s hands, and being able to sit down and think about things all day. Indeed, most parents don’t really want their kids to work in dangerous, physically-demanding jobs.

I don’t think that anyone really “incited” a riot. These peoples’ behavior was planned well in advance, and they thought about what they did. This isn’t a case of someone saying something that creates a clear and present danger of harm by 2d parties to 3d parties, where the 2d parties can’t exercise their own judgment. Finally, it is doubtful that the recruiters, in their personal capacities, have a “right” to recruit on campus. (I do, however, feel sorry for them, because of the pressure to recruit at this time.) Since the government doesn’t actually have any first amendment rights, any interference with them needs to be stated in terms of the student’s right to protest, and in terms of extant criminal laws.

Larry, at 4:50 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Re: What belongs on a college campus

As a reply to Stephanie’s comment, and coming from a member of SAW, the issue of where to draw the line between what types of employers should and should not have a space reserved for them in the campus community is something we’ve grappled with as well. One of our long-term goals for counter-recruitment was to support and build an alternative career fair organized by a group called Ethical Career Opportunities that was student-run; after all, we’re the students who are paying for these fairs to happen, and we’re the ones who are attending, so why shouldn’t we be the ones to choose what employers are invited? The event was to be a space where a wide variety of employers that fostered positive community values were invited to interact with the student community and not anti-union, sweatshop labor, discriminatory, or military-industrial corporations, among others. As a student-run event open only to non-discriminatory and ethical employers, it would also evade the Solomon Amendment stipulation of mandatory recruiter presence. The group received funding from several different sources (including the Career Center itself) but the administration decided at the last minute to use a series of stalling tactics and have each administrator “pass the buck” to another in an endless circle of unaccountability while someone in Student Affairs secretly ordered the Instructional Computing department to take down our website and blame it on the student organization advising group. We wanted to build a positive alternative to protesting the recruiters every time they come, but the administration effectively cancelled both our career fair and theirs, and instead scheduled a “dialogue” about student activism whose only agenda item is “Why do protests become violent?” That’s another piece of the story that you don’t get from University mouthpieces; remember, people like Jean Marie Scott and Elizabeth Irwin are to the University of California what Tony Snow and the other White House press spokesmen are to Bush and his kin; their primary goal is to further the image of their insitution and airbrush its mistakes.

Final note to the chap who said that the point of a university education is to separate yourself from the working class and not to have to work alongside anyone from it; that is honestly the most elitist thing I have ever heard. What a throwback to the ages of caste society; is it so ideal for the privileged elites to attend ivory-tower universities with inherited wealth to further lives of luxury secluded far from the working man and woman who labor their lives away to run the industries that make society function? Aren’t we ready to move beyond that?

Scott, UCSC, at 6:10 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Ethical?

” .. an alternative career fair organized by a group called Ethical Career Opportunities ..”

I’m reminded of the “ethical” car that was going to be produced by the late John DeLoren. The investors lost all their money and Mr. Deloren was photographed with 24 pounds of cocaine, prior to his arrest.

Careful about pointing fingers at others. They might just point back, and not always politely. My supreme being says student groups don’t hold exclusive licenses for the “truth.”

B.D., at 8:30 pm EST on January 15, 2007

protest 101

As a student I was involved in a protest that got out of hand. One student was arrested and he deserved to be (no it was not me!). Based on my experiences — including involvement in many well planned protests — two things should be done at this campus. (1) The university should press criminal charges against people who break the law and expel anyone engaged in assault. This will strengthen the legitiment protesters. (2) Protesters need to recognize that nonviolence is hard work. Doing it right requires training. They should work with faculty with experience in this area on nonviolence workshops so they can learn how to exercise their rights effectively and reasonably.

Math Prof, at 8:30 pm EST on January 15, 2007

reply to Scott

“Final note to the chap who said that the point of a university education is to separate yourself from the working class and not to have to work alongside anyone from it; that is honestly the most elitist thing I have ever heard. …Aren’t we ready to move beyond that?”

Scott, The answer to your question is, “no.” Fathers don’t want their daughters to marry poor, or their sons to have to work for minimum wage. Unless and until colleges come out and say that they are training students to do little more than work for under $15 per hours, then, yes, we are living in a caste-based society. Not that there is anything wrong with it.

Or let me ask you the question this way, Scott: Why did you go to college? Would you have spent 40 years working at Walmart?

Larry, at 8:30 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Just a note to Larry. Bravo! To the chap who doesn’t want to work next to the “working class” boy, are you in for a big surprise. And by the way young man, you will learn more about life and what is truly important AFTER your college experience.

Rick, at 11:20 pm EST on January 15, 2007

arrogance unbounded

If I were a student at UCSC I would not appreciate my fellow students attempting to decide for me which companies/organizations may attend the job fair.

If you don’t want to consider a career in the military that’s fine. But pleaes allow me to make that deicison for myself.

Why don’t you trust that your fellow students are intelligent enough to determine their own path in life? Really, they don’t need you to play mommy and daddy.

Brian, at 11:20 pm EST on January 15, 2007

Job fair situation

The military systematically discriminates against gays/lesbians, is racially biased when it comes to the representation of people of color among officer personnel, and have been known to discriminate, harass, and sexually abuse women serving our country. All of these elements stand in violation of the UC Non-discrimination policy, therefore the students are simply upholding UC policy by banning the military. And they’re not preventing other students from freedom of choice. Students wishing to join the military can use the internet or go to a recruiter headquarters at another location, but not at UCSC for the above mentioned reasons.And if you’re going to pass judgement on students who protested the UC Regents in October, be sure you were actually there like some of us were. Instead of listening to the administration or the media, maybe you should go out there, attend a rally/protest, get to know some of the people involved, and see for yourself how the students (and the police!) behave.

Daniel, You need to realize... at UCSC, at 4:30 am EST on January 16, 2007

in reply to JBM

sorry about the misuse with the word rampage, I didn’t mean angry but rather alot to say and alot of questions that would take along time to address. hopefully that changes your opinion.

Sarah, misunderstanding, at 5:50 am EST on January 16, 2007

Where are your facts?

” .. racially biased when it comes to the representation of people of color among officer personnel ..”

What are you talking about? Corporate America is lectured daily about being as diverse as the U.S. military. You better check your facts, pal.

” .. have been known to discriminate, harass, and sexually abuse women ..”

Hmm .. yes .. as opposed to the Symbionese Liberation Army, Chinese Communist Party (per PBS special), Black Panthers, et al. ..

” .. The military systematically discriminates against gays/lesbians ..”

Even Mr. “That Woman” Clinton conceded he underestimated the overwhelming negative reaction of the standing armed forces ..

Bart, at 8:05 am EST on January 16, 2007

Unis don’t have to be anti working class

Can a university be working-class friendly and still not be the IBEW Training Center? I would say of course. There are many schools that have been set up to help the children of working class families and even members of the working class. These schools are normally charactorized by what our father’s would call ‘practical’ courses such as accounting, engineering and law or education — as opposed to, for example, the ‘great books’ outlook of the Ivies many years ago. They offer extensive night course so that working people can get educated. Their prices are, or were, relatively low, and many of them offered paths into the military officer corps as that was, and is, viewed as a path upwards (read Colin Powell as one testimony)by many.

These schools historically tend to be located in urban areas of course and very often are Catholic although CCNY and Coopers Union would certainly qualify as worker friendly. And most certainly not one that would try to make people ashamed to work along side ‘working class people.’

Stm60, UConn, at 9:00 am EST on January 16, 2007

reply to Daniel and Rick

Daniel, I don’t think you have much experience in the armed forces. While I think that discrimination against homosexuals is morally wrong and strategically stupid, I never witnessed any discrimination on the basis of race. Now, of course, maybe my perception is colored, but as compared to, say, a college campus, people there is a lot more actual diversity. (There have been some disturbing race-based incidents in the past few years, but I can chalk them up to aberration, or drinking too much.)

Indeed, the armed forces probably is a lot more egalitarian in terms of promotion than most institutions. Some former officers have been known to remark that it is as close to socialist as America will ever get.

Let’s face it, in academe, it is quite possible to go from undergrad to retirement without ever having to work along side someone with a radically different background than yourself. In the armed forces, even serving as an officer: you definitely will serve along side people with almost nothing in common before joining. On the whole, I think it is good for the country, but it has been known to make some people uncomfortable.

The sexual harassment issue is somewhat more complex, but I don’t think you really care about these nuances.

That said, Rick, let me make myself clear: Nobody wants their kids to grow up working class. Despite the constant mantra on this board and elsewhere regarding how America does not respect higher education, more and more American attend school as it is regarded as the passport to a middle-class, safe, healthy, and happy lifestyle.

Larry, at 9:00 am EST on January 16, 2007

The lawyer’s narrowness

Larry once again demonstrates his weak grip on academic realities, evidently borne from his narrow set of experiences in the world of law.

Students generally align themselves with other students who reasonably match their own academic focus, temperament, intellectual discipline, objectives, and decisions on how to spend their spare time.

It is the height of hubris and a laughable sign of naivete to piously intone, as Larry often does, that the skin color, sexual orientation, ethnicity or class background of the other students is what college is all about.

The somber notion that we think with our blood or write with our skin color is repugnant and deeply reactionary. But (because of that) this racist belief is still gripped with a feverish intensity by many inside and outside of the academy.

Chuck, at 1:06 pm EST on January 16, 2007

Chuck

You should not base criticism of lawyers generally on posts not authored by a lawyer. A lawyer would have immediately recognized, for example, open assault and battery, whereas the poster did not. Whatever limits you see in a poster’s comment, you should not necessarily mistake that for a reflection of how lawyers would view that issue.

JBM, at 5:00 pm EST on January 16, 2007

citations on assault

JBM, Once again if you disagree with my interpretation of the law, please be specific. Your entire analysis is something like this, “I don’t think you are a lawyer.”

So here goes: My position is that the crime of trespassing, under California law contains different then the crime of assault. In particular, California, the definition of assault is, “is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.” This is section 240 of the penal code.

A battery, under � 242, is “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.”

These are pretty much the common law definitions. A successful assault generally merges into battery.

I have cited my sources. Now, if you disagree with my interpretation of the law, provide specifics. Although I freely admit that being a lawyer is nothing special (in fact, just about everyone I know is), if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide specifics, and citations. This is what being a lawyer is about.

Larry, at 10:50 pm EST on January 16, 2007

Wow! Couldn’t believe all the interest in this subject. Bottom line — What if I am a senior about to graduate, and have managed at my own expense to get a pilot’s license, and I want to fly jets. Shouldn’t I be able to talk flying at an airline’s booth and a military booth???

ME, at 6:05 pm EST on January 18, 2007

Before you comment or make an assumption...

Step 1) Read SAW’s statement about the cancellation of the job fair:http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/17/18348096.php

Step 2) Read an Op-Ed two students wrote on the issue of ‘free speech’ & military recruiters:http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/15/18347029.php

Step 3) Read an Op-Ed that was published after our first major counter-recruitment action (2 years ago) listing our motivations:http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/...005/April/10/edit/stories/05edit.htm

Step 4) Breathe.

Step 5) Ask yourself why a generation of students (the same generation of those fighting in Iraq..) is so passionate about counter-recruitment and opposing the war.

Are you against war? How are you trying end it? We have a plan and we’re in the process of making it happen. What are you doing?

josh, uc santa cruz, at 6:25 pm EST on January 18, 2007

on choice

“Shouldn’t I be able to talk flying at an airline’s booth and a military booth???”

Short answer: No.

Flying a plane that drops bombs (including cluster bombs which have killed tons of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq) is not just ‘another job.’

We won’t end a war if we let everyone do what they want to.

josh, ucsc, at 6:25 pm EST on January 18, 2007

Jobs Related to Want a Job? Sorry, It's Too Risky

or search for jobs directly.

Partnerships & Grants Coordinator
Plymouth State University

Plymouth State University (PSU) invites applications for the position of Partnerships & Grants Coordinator in the Center for ... see job

President
Occidental College

The Board of Trustees of Occidental College is pleased to invite nominations and applications for the position of President ... see job

Associate Professor or Professor of Sociology — Law, Crime and Deviance
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Program Manager, Off Campus Development
Princeton University

Position Summary: Princeton University seeks a Program Manager for Off-Campus Development. As Princeton ... see job

Faculty — Biomedical Engineering Technology
DeVry University

As one of the largest degree-granting higher education systems in North America, DeVry University provides high-quality, ... see job

Executive Director for Front Range Board of Cooperative Educational Services for Teacher Leadership
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora

Posting Description: The Executive Director is employed by the University of Colorado Denver (UCD) and works ... see job

Assistant Professor of Physical Chemistry
University of Puget Sound

Teaching responsibilities include physical chemistry courses (quantum mechanics and thermodynamics), physical chemistry ... see job

Stone Center Librarian
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seeks a motivated, innovative, collaborative, service-oriented, and ... see job

Coord Eeo
Maricopa Community College District

Plans, coordinates, and conducts internal discrimination complaint investigations; performs audits to ensure compliance with ... see job

PRA/Hutton Lab
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: This is a full-time (40 hours per week) PRA position in the academic biological field ... see job

Want a Job? Sorry, It’s Too Risky

Related stories