?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Apr. 13th, 2006 @ 12:32 pm WAR
We are fighting the ROTC on campus.

They recently became an official student organization and GLBT students are specifically protected in our school constitution, so the 'club' is violating our rules and we are trying to revoke their membership.

We have been getting harassing phone calls and emails. Someone even called using TTY, because that is inherently harder to trace or figure out who it is.

The president of the SGA publicly posted one of our member's email addresses and said 'if you support the military and want to stop this, email this individual' and emails have started to come in that are very hostile and insulting.

The thing is, we are NOT trying to disband the ROTC, we merely wish them to go back to the function they were last year, affiliated with the school, not an official organization, but the republicans are saying 'we hate the military' and 'the faggots are trying to disband the ROTC on campus' which is not true.

War is on.


Update: People have vandalized a poster of ours, we don't know if others have been too yet.
About this Entry
BushCheney
[User Picture Icon]
From:robertliguori
Date:April 13th, 2006 05:46 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Don't give into the temptation to fight fire with fire. Instead, fight it with firefighters. Make as big a stink with the school administration as you need to, and let them handle it. If they are apathetic, that's when you start threatening to talk to newspapers and the like.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 13th, 2006 05:55 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
The school newspaper already has it.
[User Picture Icon]
From:nviiibrown
Date:April 13th, 2006 10:14 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Go for the town paper then
From:studly_tgod
Date:April 13th, 2006 06:52 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Recruiters tried to come onto the UC Santa Cruz campus last year. We all protested, got them to leave (I am on the government's watch list as a result). This year only 2 branches tried to come, apparently.

I feel only pity & sadness for those who hate what they fear/don't understand, what makes them question their own sexual orientation or gender identity. I wish their reaction instead would be empathy for what we have to go through as trans (or G, L, B, I, et cetera). It saddens me that others take my having to transition as a threat/commentary on their own status as male, female, heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bi, whatever.

It angers me when friends such as yourself must undergo harrassment that your actions do not merit. I got it for 31 years for looking androgynous. I am sorry that you're seeing/experiencing this sort of reaction. I applaud your group's goal not to get the ROTC disbanded, but just to have them affiliated with the school.

In the end it is as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said: why can't we just all get along?
(Deleted comment)
From:studly_tgod
Date:April 14th, 2006 06:53 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Not all people present at UCSC did that; many reports in newspapers failed to acknowledge that. I was one who did not participate in the mob, as I am opposed to physical force, threats, or even verbal use of force. That type of activism is one I will not be a party to nor support. I did not the day it occured, nor do I today. The actions of those who participated in that are not of activism nor of making a difference; the actions of those are just a hurtful reaction.
(Deleted comment)
From:studly_tgod
Date:April 14th, 2006 06:29 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
No, as I do not count mobs as protest, but as reverse hatred. I incorrectly assumed that such reports as independent press are consulted. My apologies in that assumption & if that sounds confrontational; it was not meant as such. I apologize if it did.

I'm really shy. Non-violent demonstration such as carrying signs or being in Pride parades are not my thing. The 1 time I do take center stage is on trans education. Where I live, I risk my life each time I do. That (not any fault of yours) made your comment hurt. Even when I was hurting, I couldn't bring myself to respond angerly. Assertive, but not aggressive. Anger just hurts other people, as you pointed out.

My intent with my comment was to support Pathia & others who chose to be both sympathetic to other's feeling/belief while being assertive -- not aggressive -- in standing for their own. Too cool!

My heart goes out to Pathia & others in her GLBT group. She's totally stellar cool in that goal! From the first moment I met her, I really respected her. That continues to grow as I'm given the gift of getting to know her better through her posts. Thank you for that gift, Pathia!!!! You rock!
[User Picture Icon]
From:azraile
Date:April 13th, 2006 09:39 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Bah..... lol

I'm not nice with it comes to stuff like this....

If I was in your possition I would dig up the artical on the study they did of homophobic people and people that where aresivly hatefull torge GLBT people. In the study WAY more than half (like 70 or 80%) became sexualy aroused when shown homosexual porn vedio's of there own gender. Though hardly any would admit it and said the machines where borken or something ... it was all recorded. lol

I would like find some news artical on it and copy it and post it all over the ROTC office and around it. *snickers*
[User Picture Icon]
From:azraile
Date:April 13th, 2006 09:41 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Then again what that would imply to them would probly be taken rather poorly and could lead to violance x.x

probly wouldn't do it afterall.... but I would defently have gave it a though >.>

From:vulpnikov
Date:April 13th, 2006 11:46 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Wow, people actually get upset over junk like this?
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 01:05 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
In the military, the question isn't right, wrong, or capablity. The question is unit cohesion, morale, and other tactical/strategic concerns. The military rightly drops an anvil on inappropriate sexuality within its ranks because they recognize that anything that could distract the soldiers from their mission and purpose puts those soldiers at risk. Even the non-heterosexist may be uneasy around someone of the same gender who might find them physically appealing and this is a form of unncessary distraction. Distasteful as the policy is, it's the only way of satisfying the legitimate homosexual argument for the right to serve without compromising cohesion. You sometimes have to swallow the bitter pill to achieve your larger purposes.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 01:47 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
1. They are one and the same in concept if not literal application.

2. As you point out, units don't only exist on the battlefield. The miltary has had long experience watching how conventional corporations and government entities deal with the issue by using a hammer on everyone who isn't gay or has objections to the lifestyle. They wished to avoid this solution and chose the one that pissed all sides off but let homosexuals serve honorably.

3. You deal with a problem by excising the cause, not taking a hammer to the effect. Moreoever, you're confusing two traits, gender and race, with two dissimilar ones, orientation and religion. You cannot choose your race or gender but you CAN choose your religion and orientation (don't bother trying to hit me on the orientation one... my reasoning behind it is a seperate topic altogether; I CAN explain it but don't wish to ATM).

Your reasoning is flawed. A commander who is simply not a people person but is a strategic god of war can cause large-scale problems with unit cohesion that has nothing to do with his subordinates. In that case, we don't punish the subordinates for something that that commander causes, whether he intends it or not. And the reasoning of the military, in my opinion correct, is that the unease is very unlikely to be confined to a single person. Often, there is no reliable way to tell how large of a rift one person is causing becuase professionalism obligates soldiers to bury it under the surface. However, nothing stays buried forever and the military cannot afford for a problem to unbury itself in mass numbers at the wrong moment.

In the end, Stormy, caution is always wiser. The military can't afford possible problems that may arise. Limiting their risk is the best option and to be perfectly frank... to hell with the feelings of those who feel the sting of this caution. I'd rather have an all-male all-white heterosexual military that operates without things boiling beneath the surface than an all-gender all-race all-orientation one that becomes a collection of hot gas in a closed space.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 03:54 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
More, you insult our soldiers by choosing to take an argument free from any implication of unprofessionalism and see it as an indictment of the soldiers. I simply commented that you're tempting fate by tossing in an uncertain element. Indeed, the executive-order integration of the armed services created difficulties for some time although the soldiers did their duties admirably. The fact remains that there is never a need to foist unneccessary problems on the military and openly cramming a tiny minority into their ranks is one such unneccessary problem. While not openly, gays are already integrated into the military.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 08:53 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I can most certainly blame you if you're cynically trying to put words in my mouth to get around insulting me to my face. Twice now have I said that soldiers DON'T let their feelings get in the way of their duty... they bury them out of professionalism. As to the second thing you invented out of what I said, I'm not even going to grace that hogwash with a reply. If you can't stop imagining that I said something I didn't, don't bother talking to me. It's a waste of my time to answer such silly accusations and a waste of your time digging up things that aren't there.

If you wish to engage me on this issue, stick to what's ACTUALLY said and stop inventing things to attack me on.
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
A lesson one should learn, vindicated through the ages: you can't beat the US military or representatives thereof. You can only beat the politicians that control the military. I wish you ill in your misbegotten quest although I'm not meaning to be malevolent. Unless the ROTC is actively persecuting you (I mean by action, not by presence), you should leave them be just as you would have them leave you be. Fair's fair.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 14th, 2006 03:02 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
ROTC members are the ones that have attacked us verbally and defiled our posters and left harassing phone calls and emails.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 14th, 2006 03:15 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Actual members and those supporting them. We have informants.
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 03:59 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Indeed. Informants with a vested self-interest in supplying you with ammunition. If this had a lick of truth, tossing the ROTC out would be unneeded; you could simply report the misconduct of their members to their leadership or to the university. You can acquire amazing clarity into truth via action. Even if ye personally don't know all the tricks, believe me when I say that you've a large compendium at your fingertips of those who know just how to drag a weak university administration into a dispute you have with a couple malcontents. Leave the ROTC alone, R/R.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 14th, 2006 04:08 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Read my latest post
WE ARE NOT TOSSING THE ROTC OUT

That never is, nor ever will be the plan. Please read what I am saying, not what you think I am saying.
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 04:15 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
OK, I revise it... your other post calls this a peripheral issue anyway. Leave the administration out of a dispute you have with a couple malcontents, R/R. Leave them be and let the university deal with it without a pack of little hounds yapping at their heels. The administration is perfectly capable of judicating the matter without people complaining.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 14th, 2006 04:18 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
At this school, we are the administration. This school actually has a student government that has near complete control over funding.
[User Picture Icon]
From:delphshadow
Date:April 14th, 2006 04:20 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Then you've obviously made your complaint. Leave the issue be.
[User Picture Icon]
From:pathia
Date:April 14th, 2006 03:16 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Also, both of you should look at my latest entry. I explain in more detail, if a bit spastic.

Keep in mind I'm writing this on the fly, that's why I don't have as much information and why this seems so anti-ROTC. We're in the middle of being attacked by random people via email, phone and Myspace/facebook.

Just a little bit unnerved and spazzy.
From:studly_tgod
Date:April 14th, 2006 06:33 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
*hug* I know firsthand what you're going through. From your post (for that is all I have), it sounds as if your group is trying to both be empathetic to the needs of the ROTC students while being assertive about needs of fellow LGBT students. It's frustrating, but going only on what you posted, it sounds as if you're trying to do the right thing for all students, not just one demographic (LGBT). Good for you.