• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

'Pappy' Boyington Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
From the WSJ editorial page, Friday, FEB 17, 2006:

It's well known that college students today aren't as educated in our nation's history as they should be, but it's still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington's student senate at its campus in Seattle.

The issue before the Senate this month was a proposed memorial to World War II combat pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a 1933 engineering graduate of the university, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service commanding the famed "Black Sheep" squadron in the Pacific. The student senate rejected the memorial because "a Marine" is not "an example of the sort of person UW wants to produce."

Digging themselves in deeper, the student opponents of the memorial indicated: "We don't need to honor any more rich white males." Other opponents compared Boyington's actions during World War II with murder.

"I am absolutely bewildered that the Student Senate voted down the resolution," Brent Ludeman, the president of the UW College Republicans, told me. He noted that despite the deficiencies of the UW History Department, the complete ignorance of Boyington's history and reputation by the student body was hard to fathom. After all, "Black Sheep Squadron," a 1970s television show portraying Colonel Boyington's heroism as a pilot and Japanese prisoner of war, still airs frequently on the History Channel. Apparently, though, it's an unusual UW student who'd be willing to learn any U.S. history even if it's spoonfed to him by TV.

As for the sin of honoring a rich white male, Mr. Ludeman points out that Boyington (who died in 1988) was neither rich nor white. He happened to be a Sioux Indian, who wound up raising his three children as a single parent. "Colonel Boyington is luckily not around to see how ignorant students at his alma mater can be today," says Kirby Wilbur, a morning talk show host at Seattle's KVI Radio. Perhaps the trustees and alumni of the school will now help educate them.
-- John Fund




Boyington once famously said: "Name me a hero, and I'll prove he's a bum". "Pappy" had a dark side ... a side of him that most of the general public remains unaware of... He may not have been a perfect soul ... but which of us here is?? His service to his country and his memory deserve a far better fate than they received at the hands of the University of Washington student senate.

*edit* ... Irony??? This is a link from COLUMNS ... the UofW alumni magazine. It contains an article from the December, 1998 issue done by the history department -- the same history department that today apparently never heard of Boyington -- it is amazing how 8 years of politcal correctness changes things.


http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/dec98/back_pages1298.html
 

KBayDog

Well-Known Member
...it's still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington's student senate at its campus in Seattle.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? Try "ignorance."

From the "minutes":

"Jill Edwards questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people."

For...whom...pray...tell...is...the...University...that...she...chose...to...attend...named...in...honor..of? :icon_rage

GeoMount.gif
 

esday1

He'll dazzle you with terms like "Code Red."
I really get the feeling that some partisan news sources (e.g. WorldNetDaily) are either deliberately misrepresenting this story or putting it out there without doing any work to verify whether that spin on the story is actually correct. With a few seconds of googling, I found this discussion on the UW student senate page that listed several reasons that the UW student senate may have voted down the resolution, other than the stereotypical ignorant anti-military attitudes voiced by a small handful of students:
http://senate.asuw.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=36&sid=bbde4986641de10a32c839687dc126ba

I was just wondering why Col. Boyington was the only one being honored. There's at least one other MoH recipient, I would like to think there are more. Perhaps a monument to all the MoH recipients who graduated from the UW would be a better option.
With all due respect sir, I'd suggest this issue is a bit more complicated that you give it credit for. You see, I agree that these gentlemen performed admirably in service of their country and were we simply discussing a resolution to express our gratitude, this would be quite simple for me. But we're talking about the creation of a physical memorial...
So how do we decide who deserves a physical memorial on campus? We simply haven't space to create one for every alum that is deserving, so rather than attempt some sort of hierarchy that will doubtlessly prove imperfect, perhaps the best response is to avoid advocating for memorials, but rather to find other ways of honoring our esteemed alumni.
Yes, some people did not wish to honor Col. Boyington. That is a valid implication of the Resolution's failure. However, there are other options. I know some people voted against the Resolution because they felt it was unclear, murky, and not fully developed. The implication of that being that the Senate did not wish to approve something they felt was not yet right. Tabling or post-poning do not serve to change the legislation. Failing it allows the sponsor to go back and take the critique of the Senate and write a new, better Resolution.
As for cost and logistics issues, that cannot be helped. If the proposal was unorganized and nebulous, then matters should be placed on hold until everything gets in working order.
I won't speculate as to that member's motivations for the vote, but I will say that of the 90 senators voting, I strongly believe that anti-military sentiment had little to do with this bill not passing. It wasn't the basis of my vote and I'm confident it wasn't the basis of the votes of the majority of my peers; I wonder if anyone else would care to speak on the subject...?

And there's an alternate version of the legislation under consideration: https://senate.asuw.org:4431/legislation/12/R/R-12-25.html

I'd be interested to see if this passes whether all the partisan media sources that jumped on the story to begin with will spread the correction/update around as aggressively as they did the original story.

long story short...
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.
 

Fmr1833

Shut the F#%k up, dummy!
None
Contributor
esday1 said:
I really get the feeling that some partisan news sources (e.g. WorldNetDaily) are either deliberately misrepresenting this story or putting it out there without doing any work to verify whether that spin on the story is actually correct. With a few seconds of googling, I found this discussion on the UW student senate page that listed several reasons that the UW student senate may have voted down the resolution, other than the stereotypical ignorant anti-military attitudes voiced by a small handful of students:
http://senate.asuw.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=36&sid=bbde4986641de10a32c839687dc126ba



And there's an alternate version of the legislation under consideration: https://senate.asuw.org:4431/legislation/12/R/R-12-25.html

I'd be interested to see if this passes whether all the partisan media sources that jumped on the story to begin with will spread the correction/update around as aggressively as they did the original story.

long story short...
Don't believe everything you read on the internet.


Maybe you should read the minutes of the meeting before you go spouting off like this is a vast right-wing conspiracy. If you had read those minutes, as I did, you would have seen that this was an attack on warfighters, whites, affluents and sanity. These kids are idiots who have no idea of the history about which they speak and rebel against. Awesome that you were able to craft your perspective by quoting a few, perhaps, intelligent comments by other students NOT IN THE SENATE. That would be like quoting Airwarriors about a pro-military topic and attributing the quotes to MOVEON.ORG. Seriously, this got voted down because:
a) most UW senators thought Pappy was white and rich,
b) most UW senators think that warfighters are evil and are not deserving of commemoration,
c) most UW senators think that Pappy, a former POW and MOH awardee , was no more worthy a memorial than some professors who have taught for 20 or more years.

Have you ever talked to someone from UW? I serve in the Navy with a few guys who graduated last year from there. You should hear of the crap they went through walking around that campus in their ROTC uniforms. So you can sit there believing that the WSJ and other news sources with a traditionally right slant are making much ado about nothing, but you'd be wrong.
 

BigIron

Remotely piloted
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
I read the minutes as well. I get the impression these are self-inflated college students blowing hot air and who are most interested in looking intelligent as they debate with their peers over world events and the ever problems that plague the campus...parking, etc.

Unfortunately there seems to be an element (all over the place) who don't appreciate the good service and heroic actions of folks who have gone before and made a difference. They condemn the military, and killing, but yet feel so strongly about their right to pontificate and be heard. Some people just don't get it.
 

esday1

He'll dazzle you with terms like "Code Red."
Fmr1833 said:
Maybe you should read the minutes of the meeting before you go spouting off like this is a vast right-wing conspiracy. If you had read those minutes, as I did, you would have seen that this was an attack on warfighters, whites, affluents and sanity.

Maybe you should take a look at those minutes again:
http://senate.asuw.org/secretary/minutes/senate/12/02-07-2006.pdf
The discussion of the Boyington memorial starts on page 4. If you read through the whole thing (particularly on the top of page 7), there are a few comments questioning the memorial for reasons that have nothing to do with ideology.

Awesome that you were able to craft your perspective by quoting a few, perhaps, intelligent comments by other students NOT IN THE SENATE.

If you had bothered to read the link I posted, or even taken a second look at the parts that I quoted (particularly the last one), you'll note that some of the posters there identify themselves as members of the UW student senate or imply that they are. I have no way to verify that since it is, after all, the internet, but they do identify themselves as UW Senate members.

Seriously, this got voted down because:
a) most UW senators thought Pappy was white and rich,
b) most UW senators think that warfighters are evil and are not deserving of commemoration,
c) most UW senators think that Pappy, a former POW and MOH awardee , was no more worthy a memorial than some professors who have taught for 20 or more years.

The resolution failed on a tied vote. So, if even one of the "no" votes was for any reason other than what you stated (and the minutes of the meeting clearly suggest that there were other reasons for opposition), then all of your assertions that "most UW senators..." fail. Your evidence consists of paraphrased quotes from a small handful of students, yet you generalize that to claim that they spoke for all 45 that voted against that particular resolution.

Have you ever talked to someone from UW?

Roughly half my high school classmates went to UW, so yes.

I serve in the Navy with a few guys who graduated last year from there. You should hear of the crap they went through walking around that campus in their ROTC uniforms.

I'm not arguing with you there. I know that the lunatic fringe exists. My sister goes to Evergreen, which is a whole lot worse in this respect. However, there's a substantial difference between showing that a few people have ignorant attitudes, and finding a few selective quotes from those few and ascribing those attitudes to a much wider group.

So you can sit there believing that the WSJ and other news sources with a traditionally right slant are making much ado about nothing, but you'd be wrong.

Much ado about nothing, no. Dramatically exaggerating to make an ideological point with little regard for fact or journalistic integrity, yes.
 

RockyMtnNFO

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
I graduated from U of W. It's a liberal cesspool like most Universities. I wasn't on scholarship when i went there for the Navy nor was I even as hawkish as i am now, but i was less than "tolerated" for being a Christian.

They're still kids and will hopefully get educated once they get out of the communist think tank they call school.

They will never get a cent from me.
 
Top