Interesting Testimony of Army Infantry Captain on Kagan Nomination

#2
Pretty eloquent testimony whether you agree with his views or not--interesting it did not make it in the traditional media coverage:

YouTube - Capt. Pete Hegseth Testifies about Kagan's Treatment of the Military at Harvard
Indeed interesting that it did not!

I agree it was persuasive testimony, and suspect we shall see more of this young man over the years.

It would have been interesting had the situation allowed or, better, demanded, a personal and immediate response from the potential appointee.
 
#3
The anti-military sentiment in academia is widespread in Britain also. The late '60s/early '70s hippy mob are now seeking to teach their agenda to their pupils. During the course of my Master's I had to assess a set of ethical guidelines for the potential researcher. One of these named the military as a 'distasteful organisation' that a researcher should avoid. Needless to say that my synopsis wasn't very complementary!
 
#4
The anti-military sentiment in academia is widespread in Britain also. The late '60s/early '70s hippy mob are now seeking to teach their agenda to their pupils. During the course of my Master's I had to assess a set of ethical guidelines for the potential researcher. One of these named the military as a 'distasteful organisation' that a researcher should avoid. Needless to say that my synopsis wasn't very complementary!
What I also find interesting is that some of these dons are the proverbial foxes in the henhouse due to the privatiz(s)ation of your professional officers' education programs. It is one thing to encourage open discourse and free thinking but I think it is not necessarily the best thing to have some faculty members who have an actual disdain for military matters.
 
#5
The anti-military sentiment in academia is widespread in Britain also. The late '60s/early '70s hippy mob are now seeking to teach their agenda to their pupils. During the course of my Master's I had to assess a set of ethical guidelines for the potential researcher. One of these named the military as a 'distasteful organisation' that a researcher should avoid. Needless to say that my synopsis wasn't very complementary!
That's your personal experience, but I have to say that it doesn't resemble mine. I've been to two different Universities here in the UK and did not experience anything like that. In fact, the last establishment where I studied had and still has a very good relationship with the Forces, to the point that the RM provide instruction classes on self defence to female students, the TA and RNR both have recruiting desks in the SU at the beginning of each academic year, and the recruiting team from the local Infantry Bn are regular visitors.

In the build up to 11th November there is an abundance of students and staff all wearing their poppies. I've never heard a bad word against the Forces. My former place of study didn't have (at the time I was there) this level of contact, but Forces recruiters were always present at the start of the academic year.

I've never seen any 'child of the 60s' promote demonstration either. There are too many false stereotyped opinions on students, lecturers and Universities.

As for being 'widespread', I challenge you to support that.
 
#6
That's your personal experience, but I have to say that it doesn't resemble mine. I've been to two different Universities here in the UK and did not experience anything like that. In fact, the last establishment where I studied had and still has a very good relationship with the Forces, to the point that the RM provide instruction classes on self defence to female students, the TA and RNR both have recruiting desks in the SU at the beginning of each academic year, and the recruiting team from the local Infantry Bn are regular visitors.

In the build up to 11th November there is an abundance of students and staff all wearing their poppies. I've never heard a bad word against the Forces. My former place of study didn't have (at the time I was there) this level of contact, but Forces recruiters were always present at the start of the academic year.

I've never seen any 'child of the 60s' promote demonstration either. There are too many false stereotyped opinions on students, lecturers and Universities.

As for being 'widespread', I challenge you to support that.

That is very encouraging to hear.
 
#7
Listening to a Senators views on her (Sessions) it would appear that one of the props for her anti military stance was her dislike of the "dont tell" law on homosexuality in the military! However her open support for a Saudi proposal to open a center for "Sharia" law, which condemns homosexuals and advocates PUNISHING them by flogging or DEATH, shows her as being typical of the moronic do gooders who have no idea about the REAL world! FFS she should go back to housewifery, she is certainly not fit to be in any responsible position in the law or accademia!
 
#8
That's your personal experience, but I have to say that it doesn't resemble mine. I've been to two different Universities here in the UK and did not experience anything like that. In fact, the last establishment where I studied had and still has a very good relationship with the Forces, to the point that the RM provide instruction classes on self defence to female students, the TA and RNR both have recruiting desks in the SU at the beginning of each academic year, and the recruiting team from the local Infantry Bn are regular visitors.

In the build up to 11th November there is an abundance of students and staff all wearing their poppies. I've never heard a bad word against the Forces. My former place of study didn't have (at the time I was there) this level of contact, but Forces recruiters were always present at the start of the academic year.

I've never seen any 'child of the 60s' promote demonstration either. There are too many false stereotyped opinions on students, lecturers and Universities.

As for being 'widespread', I challenge you to support that.
I can support that, not at a University level, as I do not have recent excperience in those institutions, but certainly there are many schools at which Head Teachers have been resistant to the creation of or support of Army Cadet Units, and one CCF recently is ceasing because of a lack of co-operation of a Head. It has, incidentally, and optimistically, been apparent over the last ten years or so, that more schools have been wiling to actually open units, linked to the academic syllabus. But there are still many Heads who would claim that their non support of this youth club is on an "anti war" ticket. (Sorry if "ticket" was an "Americanism, JJH, but I am sure you might excuse it :) ).

Let me say now, as Cadet Forces have a poor reputation on ARRSE, (not least down to a lot of "our own small minority" of uniform fetishists and failed "real soldiers wannabees" winding up the membership!); for the benefit of JJH, that our Cadet Forces are sponsored as The Army's Youth Organisation, using largely military skills in structured activity for 12-18 year olds, and link in with The Duke of Edinburgh Scheme etc. They are not a recruitment organisation, though obviously foster the interest of a young man or woman who wishes to consider that as a career. Young people in the ACF are (Fact!), more self disciplined and more confident than their average same age counterpart in Britain who does not belong to any youth organisation.
 
#9
I can support that, not at a University level, as I do not have recent excperience in those institutions, but certainly there are many schools at which Head Teachers have been resistant to the creation of or support of Army Cadet Units, and one CCF recently is ceasing because of a lack of co-operation of a Head. It has, incidentally, and optimistically, been apparent over the last ten years or so, that more schools have been wiling to actually open units, linked to the academic syllabus. But there are still many Heads who would claim that their non support of this youth club is on an "anti war" ticket. (Sorry if "ticket" was an "Americanism, JJH, but I am sure you might excuse it :) ).




Let me say now, as Cadet Forces have a poor reputation on ARRSE, (not least down to a lot of "our own small minority" of uniform fetishists and failed "real soldiers wannabees" winding up the membership!); for the benefit of JJH, that our Cadet Forces are sponsored as The Army's Youth Organisation, using largely military skills in structured activity for 12-18 year olds, and link in with The Duke of Edinburgh Scheme etc. They are not a recruitment organisation, though obviously foster the interest of a young man or woman who wishes to consider that as a career. Young people in the ACF are (Fact!), more self disciplined and more confident than their average same age counterpart in Britain who does not belong to any youth organisation.
Many thanks for the explanation.
 
#11
Unimpressive to my eyes - from here it looks like good old US political axe-grinding at its finest (i.e. the "other side" is universally awful, and must be attacked at a personal level with cries of "burn the witch!"). Nothing to do with whether Kagan is a fit and proper member of the Supreme Court, and everything to do with the suspicion that she isn't sufficiently Republican. Not to worry, I'm sure Fox News will report it. It's also interesting that Captain Hegseth failed to comment on his personal opinions about "don't ask, don't tell"...

The bar on homosexuals in the British armed forces was occasionally used in attempts to "stick it to the establishment", by young student politics types who were all enthusiasm and no effect - "You shouldn't be able to recruit here, you don't support equal opportunities". That didn't mean that the inequality wasn't wrong, and shouldn't have been addressed. When it was, they had to shut up.

I never saw anything other than support for the Armed Forces while at University, apart from the occasional loudmouth from the Socialist Workers Students Society, and a 1980s mischief-maker who put the recruiting stands for the UOTC and the "Troops Out of Northern Ireland" society next to each other, separated only by the Sri Chinmoy Peace Movement... (and yes, the UOTC had far more traffic than either of the others).

The worst accusation IMHO is that Kagan saw fit to critique "don't ask, don't tell" while being part of a department that accepted Saudi financial support. Extending the critique of a single policy into evidence of "attacking the armed forces while they are at war" is a tad extreme...
 
#12
Unimpressive to my eyes - from here it looks like good old US political axe-grinding at its finest (i.e. the "other side" is universally awful, and must be attacked at a personal level with cries of "burn the witch!"). Nothing to do with whether Kagan is a fit and proper member of the Supreme Court, and everything to do with the suspicion that she isn't sufficiently Republican. Not to worry, I'm sure Fox News will report it. It's also interesting that Captain Hegseth failed to comment on his personal opinions about "don't ask, don't tell"...

The bar on homosexuals in the British armed forces was occasionally used in attempts to "stick it to the establishment", by young student politics types who were all enthusiasm and no effect - "You shouldn't be able to recruit here, you don't support equal opportunities". That didn't mean that the inequality wasn't wrong, and shouldn't have been addressed. When it was, they had to shut up.

I never saw anything other than support for the Armed Forces while at University, apart from the occasional loudmouth from the Socialist Workers Students Society, and a 1980s mischief-maker who put the recruiting stands for the UOTC and the "Troops Out of Northern Ireland" society next to each other, separated only by the Sri Chinmoy Peace Movement... (and yes, the UOTC had far more traffic than either of the others).

The worst accusation IMHO is that Kagan saw fit to critique "don't ask, don't tell" while being part of a department that accepted Saudi financial support. Extending the critique of a single policy into evidence of "attacking the armed forces while they are at war" is a tad extreme...
Entitled to your opinion of course--I focus on the fact she was a dean of a law school openiy violating a federal law.
 
#13
Entitled to your opinion of course--I focus on the fact she was a dean of a law school openiy violating a federal law.
That's not it, as I understand. She agreed with an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment; the Association of American Law Schools requires that Schools have a policy which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The two are inconsistent (and let's face it, DADT is a more emotive than factual response; no-one is claiming that the Israeli or British armies have fallen apart after lifting bans on LGBT soldiers).

Exactly how did Harvard "openly violate a Federal Law"? The recruiters visited campus, and as a result she sent out an e-mail in which she stated that she disagreed strongly with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Harvard wasn't even a member of the coalition who challenged the Solomon Amendment in the Supreme Court.

If you want to interpret the challenging of a law as a violation of it, that's a slippery slope... but as ever, I'm perfectly willing to be shown where I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
 
#14
That's not it, as I understand. She agreed with an attempt to overturn the Solomon Amendment; the Association of American Law Schools requires that Schools have a policy which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The two are inconsistent (and let's face it, DADT is a more emotive than factual response; no-one is claiming that the Israeli or British armies have fallen apart after lifting bans on LGBT soldiers).

Exactly how did Harvard "openly violate a Federal Law"? The recruiters visited campus, and as a result she sent out an e-mail in which she stated that she disagreed strongly with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Harvard wasn't even a member of the coalition who challenged the Solomon Amendment in the Supreme Court.

If you want to interpret the challenging of a law as a violation of it, that's a slippery slope... but as ever, I'm perfectly willing to be shown where I've grabbed the wrong end of the stick.
Having spoken to several who were students of hers during that period that was not the extent of her "opposition." I think, as numerous observers on the political scene across the political spectrum have already noted, she is engaging in a well-orchestrated strategy of obfuscation and manipulation of definitions and artful answering. Of course, none of this is new nor does it really matter as it is apparent that she will be installed unless she snatches her confirmation from the jaws of victory by a gross misstep.

As for the underlying substantive issue we also disagree-on moral as well as cultural grounds, as I have repeatedly said elsewhere, just because we (sort of) share a language, history etc. with another country or a formal or informal alliance (whether NATO or US/Israeli) with other nations does not mean their experience with various social experiments using the military as veritable lab rats (unionization, homosexuality, women in ground combat roles etc.), does not mean the US military should follow suit.
 
#15
As for the underlying substantive issue we also disagree-on moral as well as cultural grounds
Cultural grounds I'm willing to accept. Y'all have the Bible Belt to contend with, not to mention Creationists and Sarah Palin.

Moral grounds is a more subjective position - IMHO you get to argue those once you either abolish the death penalty or fully implement Leviticus (including the bits about seafood, witches, and menstruation). Claiming that something is "immoral" is too often used as cover for "I have a prejudice which I can't support with logic" - see sundry preachers and claims about the immorality of mixed marriages, dancing, Catholicism, or integrated education.

I believe that the "moral" argument is that I should treat people according to their deeds and abilities, regardless of colour of skin, sexual orientation, or gender (because these are fairly constant). Anything else would be bigotry, surely? If you think sexual orientation is something you choose (thus giving grounds for discrimination), unfortunately so is personal faith...

(apart from those who list their faith as Jedi, obviously - those heretics have it in for all the Sith)
 
#16
Let's play a little numbers game:

Roughly how many of the 550 students admitted to Harvard Law School each year do you think lack the brains to find the nearest recruitment office? Now factor in how many may be so inclined to go there, looking for a job that pays $25k-$35k for their first few years when the average starting salary for a Harvard law School graduate is well over $100k and there's a good chance they're going to be about $180k-$200k in debt by the time they graduate. (That last figure doesn't include any undergraduate debt, btw.)

Got a figure in your head? Good.

Next... compare that to the number of willing and talented servicemen and women who have been dismissed between 2003-2009 because they batted for the other team.

This is a non-******* story from start to finish.
 
#17
Let's play a little numbers game:

Roughly how many of the 550 students admitted to Harvard Law School each year do you think lack the brains to find the nearest recruitment office? Now factor in how many may be so inclined to go there, looking for a job that pays $25k-$35k for their first few years when the average starting salary for a Harvard law School graduate is well over $100k and there's a good chance they're going to be about $180k-$200k in debt by the time they graduate. (That last figure doesn't include any undergraduate debt, btw.)

Got a figure in your head? Good.

Next... compare that to the number of willing and talented servicemen and women who have been dismissed between 2003-2009 because they batted for the other team.

This is a non-******* story from start to finish.
So that is how you determine if the rule of law prevails or not--a very principled approach I must say. I suppose you take the same view of the non-story of the New Black Panther Party case. It is no wonder we are in the straits we are in.
 
#19
you must remember student politics is for the most part nutters of the left wing type get to make a lot of noise because nobody else can be arrsed 99% of the time

case in point during granby the peace niks organised all sorts of work shops and organised a Brighton uni does'nt like the troops of some sort of shit like that vote.
come the day motion was defeated massivly by everybody turning up:)
got told this by a leftie who was not impressed by me going yeah
 
#20
Further to my earlier point about how it makes zero financial sense for a HLS grad to join up, Kagan actually instituted a program whereby a student who agreed to spend a minimum of 5 years in public service would have their final year's tuition waved. (Worth about $41,000.)

Oh and I got one figure wrong: according to the HLS website, in 2008 the average starting salary for a graduate was over $155,000. Starting pay for a 2LT... $25,000

JJH said:
So that is how you determine if the rule of law prevails or not--a very principled approach I must say.
As to whether Kagan broke the law, all you have to go on are the assertions of Jeff Sessions- widely regarded by people on both sides of the aisle to be the dumbest person serving in the US Senate- and a retired JAG officer who has a book to sell and who has been pulled from obscurity by those disingenuous cnuts at Fox/CNS et al. It's not a question of Kagan's decision to deny armed forces recruiters access being legal or illegal. The provision of the Solomon Amendment is that the Secretary of Defense is empowered to deny federal grants and funding to universities and colleges which do not allow access. Institutions, particularly private ones, are still perfectly at liberty to deny access and if a bill stipulated that military recruiters must be granted access to campuses, then it'd probably die a quick death at the hands of the Third Amendment. Instead, the Solomon Amendment says, in effect:OK, you don't have to let us in, but we don't have to give you any money either.

Rather than Kagan- or any other official- being investigated on suspicion of criminal activity, the constitutionality of the Amendment-10 U.S.C. § 983- was, in fact, challenged by a number of Law Schools, who objected on First Amendment grounds. But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously to reject the challenge and rather than have Harvard lose out on $400m a year in govt funding and research grants, Kagan climbed down and allowed recruiters access to the HLS career service facilities. The HLS policy which disqualified the military from receiving equal support from the Office of Career Services dated back as far as 1979, before she even matriculated. (Note that they were never actually banned from the campus, just denied overt support from the school.) However, there are still colleges that maintain a ban on military recruiters on the grounds that they discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Robert C. Clark: Kagan and the Military: What Really Happened - WSJ.com
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top