CMR Backs Republican Party Anti-Obama effort to destroy American military with social engineering and forcing women into combat

2016 Republican National Platform Rejects Social Experimentation and Political Correctness in the Military July 27, 2016 Share/Bookmark Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, his administration has delivered on campaign promises to impose radical social agendas on our military. The Center for Military Readiness is pleased to report that the 2016 Republican National Convention has resolved to objectively review and repair the damage. CMR is non-partisan, but for months leading up to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, we worked in various ways to identify a potential Commander-in-Chief who shares our concerns. The 2016 presidential election will be critically important to the future of our military. The process began in January we asked questions of Republican candidates with the 2016 Quadrennial CMR Presidential Candidate Survey. The dual purpose was to provide background and prepare the various candidates for public questions about CMR issues, and to inform voters of their responses to our survey questions. Following a long series of primaries in which Donald J. Trump emerged as the nominee, we established contact with the Trump campaign to provide information prior to the writing of the 58-page 2016 Republican National Platform. The resulting 14-page platform section titled “America Resurgent” includes nine planks of interest to CMR, plus many more statements on national defense that should encourage voters who are interested in national security. This set of solid statements regarding military/social issues provide a clear roadmap for reassessing and eventually reversing much of the damage done to our military since 2009. Some people believe that a written platform has little meaning, but they are mistaken. The dynamic process of writing the document brings together in a small, intense environment scores of grassroots activists, experts on many topics, lawmakers, and campaign officials who may become part of a new administration that will have power to implement good ideas. The first step is to recognize that problems exist and to restore sound priorities. The platform calls for an end to social experimentation and an honest assessment of problems that need to be corrected. Because unwise policies that the Obama administration imposed administratively can be undone in the same way, nine platform planks presented and analyzed below challenge the results of political correctness taken to extremes. The platform approved in Cleveland provides a road map, but voters must choose wisely and demand that its principles be honored. 1. Military Readiness, not Political Correctness “We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation and will not accept or continue attempts to undermine military priorities and mission readiness. We believe that our nation is most secure when the president and the administration prioritize readiness, recruitment, and retention rather than using the military to advance a social or political agenda. Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.” (p. 44, emphasis added throughout) Background: The Obama Administration has repeatedly used executive power to impose feminist agendas and LGBT law and regulations implementing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender agenda for the military, regardless of the harmful consequences. This statement puts Republicans squarely on the side of military personnel who have been subjected to political correctness taken to extremes, and signals a change in direction that would assign priority to military readiness, not social agendas. 2. Objective Review and Correction of Military/Social Problems “We call for an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current Administration’s ideology-based personnel policies, and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action.” (p. 44) Background: On issues ranging from involuntary service for women in the combat arms to transgenders in the military, the need for honest evaluations and action to repair the damage done to our military since 2009 has become increasingly obvious. Instead of continuing Barack Obama’s social agenda without question, a Republican administration will objectively review the consequences of all social policies and restore sound priorities that put military readiness first. 3. Women in Direct Ground Combat “We reiterate our support for both the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.” (p. 43) Background: Unchanging physical requirements in “tip of the spear” direct ground combat units; e.g., Army and Marine infantry, artillery, armor, Special Operations Forces and Navy SEALs, are extraordinary. The missions of fighting teams that seek out and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action go beyond the experience of being “in harms’ way” in war zones, where women have served with honor and courage. In September 2015 the U.S. Marine Corps submitted a formal request for exceptions to the administration’s plans to eliminate women’s exemptions from the combat arms. Scientific research supported that request. In field tests, gender-mixed units underperformed 69 percent of the time. Physical differences that cannot be “mitigated” would have a serious negative effect on what the Marines called “survivability and lethality.” On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter disregarded the Marines’ best professional advice. Secretary Carter announced plans to impose controversial policies known to impede combat effectiveness and speed while significantly increasing female injuries. In an official Army survey, 92.5 percent of women said they did not want to serve in direct ground combat units, but Secretary Carter confirmed that such assignments would not be voluntary. Following an open and objective review of the Marine Corps’ 2015 research and developments since then, the next President should take appropriate action to restore combat effectiveness as the highest priority in all direct ground combat communities. In addition, Congress should take steps to codify sound policies regarding women in the military. 4. Military Standards “In particular, we warn against modification or lessening of standards in order to satisfy a nonmilitary agenda imposed by the White House.” (p. 44) Background: In 2011 Obama Administration Pentagon leaders adopted as official policy recommendations of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The 2011 MLDC report, which is still cited by Defense Department officials, promoted as paramount goals women in land combat and “gender diversity metrics,” another name for quotas. The concept, which is not the same as non-discrimination or recognition of individual merit, promotes pre-determined demographic goals that have the effect of lowering standards to levels that are “gender-neutral” but lower than before. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus repeatedly has called for one in four Navy personnel to be women, even as he keeps denying the existence of gender quotas. In the interests of true equality, the next administration should end all pressures to achieve gender diversity quotas in the military. 5. Support for the All-Volunteer Force, Not Compulsory National Service “Our country’s all-volunteer force has been a success. We oppose the reinstatement of the draft, except in dire circumstances like world war, whether directly or through compulsory national service.” (p. 43) Background: Volunteer service should be encouraged, but reinstatement of a military draft or mandatory national service, on a gender-neutral basis, would be unwarranted extensions of government power that would weaken the special culture of the all-volunteer force. 6. Opposition to Registering Women for Selective Service “[We] oppose unnecessary policy changes, including . . . Selective Service registration of women for a possible future draft.” (p. 43) Background: In 1981 the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional young women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations, tying it to military women’s exemption from direct ground (infantry) combat. The court cited a Senate report affirming that the only legitimate purpose of registration or a draft is to find and train “combat replacements,” not support troops. The court also affirmed the right of Congress to exempt women for other rational, fact-based reasons. Calling up thousands of potential female draftees, most of whom will not meet combat standards, would slow mobilization during a time of catastrophic national emergency, the worst possible time. Congress should review capabilities of the Selective Service system, applying standards of military readiness, not “gender equality.” 7. Religious Liberty “We support the rights of conscience of military chaplains of all faiths to practice their faith free from political interference. We reject attempts by the Obama Administration to censure and silence them, particularly Christians and Christian chaplains. We support an increase in the size of the Chaplain Corps. A Republican commander-in-chief will protect the religious freedom of all military members, especially chaplains, and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities. A Republican commander-in-chief will also encourage education regarding the religious liberties of military personnel under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the current National Defense Authorization Act.” Background: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights of conscience and religious liberty for both chaplains and military personnel who are deployed far from home. Servicemen and women have a constitutional right to receive counsel from chaplains who are free to discuss matters of morality during all activities, not limited to worship services. Since 2011, there have been numerous attempts to censure and silence chaplains and people of faith, creating a "chilling effect" and fear of career penalties for exercising rights of religious liberty. In some of these cases, military personnel have had to seek legal defense. In 2012 and 2013, Congress enacted legislation to protect rights of conscience and religious liberty for military chaplains and people of faith. The law bars adverse discrimination or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment. Chaplains continue to minister to persons of all faiths and backgrounds, as they always have, but they should not be required to endorse certain life choices that traditions of most major faiths consider to be wrong. 8. Special Interest Demonstrations “We affirm the cultural values that encourage selfless service and superiority in battle, and oppose anything which might divide or weaken team cohesion, including intra-military special interest demonstrations.” (pp. 43-44) Background: Every year since 2009, the Obama White House has celebrated June as LGBT Pride Month. This and similar events at the Pentagon and many military bases have been used to promote special interest demands of LGBT groups demanding access and benefits for transgenders in the military. In response, the administration unilaterally extended protected civil rights status and medical benefits to transgendered personnel. In the same way that our military does not allow labor unions, activist events promoting LGBT Law and other special interest causes are inherently divisive and harmful to unit cohesion. 9. Military Justice “We oppose legislative attempts to modify the system of military justice that would undermine its fairness and due process rights for all concerned, both the accuser and the accused.” (p. 44) Background: Constantly-increasing rates of sexual assault and retaliation against persons reporting harassment have given rise to many constructive reforms to improve military justice. Congress, however, has refused to pass misguided legislation to remove local commanders from decisions regarding prosecution of many crimes, including sexual assault. Legislation based on a presumption of guilt, not innocence, or the premise that accusations alone justify "victim" or "survivor" status, would be demoralizing and unjust. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commanders are accountable for everything that happens in their area of responsibility. This includes decisions to convene courts-martial or to impose career-ending non-judicial punishments. Military Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) advise commanders on legal matters, but they do not need (or want) responsibilities of command. The best way to protect due process is to support and improve legal representation for both the accuser and the accused. 10. Military Superiority “Republicans continue to support American military superiority, which has been the cornerstone of a strategy that seeks to deter aggression or defeat those who threaten our vital national security interests.” (p. 42) Background: The 14-page section of the 2016 Republican Platform, titled “America Resurgent,” includes many sound ideas to restore the strength of America’s military, and to restore respect for America worldwide. It begins by quoting Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 23 that the first of the “principle” constitutional obligations of the federal government is to provide for the “common defense” of the United States. It also notes that President George Washington wisely reminded us that “to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” Our All-Volunteer Force is the only institution we have to defend America in a world that faces multiple threats and is far from peace. The statement above has reaffirmed that long-standing, important principle. What Does the Democratic Platform Say? The 46-page 2016 Democratic Party Platform, approved by a Platform Committee on July 21, 2016, in Orlando, Florida, includes seven pages with three sections titled “Principled Leadership, “Support Our Troops and Keep Faith with Our Veterans” and “Confront Global Threats.” The document criticizes Republican nominee Donald Trump for having “no strategy for dealing with key threats facing our country, including climate change and ISIS.” (p. 40) Some provisions are similar to Republican planks, but three sentences state positions on women in direct ground combat and LGBT law in the military that are opposite those of the Republicans. The document does not comment on additional issues highlighted above, except for this statement, which assigns highest priority to inverted priorities on military/social issues: “Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identifies are honored for their service to our country.” (p. 41) In contrast, the Republican Platform states in four different places, “We are the party of peace through strength.” (p. 41) For voters concerned about national defense, the choices are clear. * * * * * * * The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues. Nothing in this article should be construed as an endorsement of any candidate. More information on all issues discussed is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org. Search HOME THE CENTER MAKE A CONTRIBUTION CONTACT US© 2001-2016 Center for Military Readiness. All rights reserved.

Save women from draft in America. Elaine Connelly CMR

Republicans Reject Social Engineering,   Political Correctness in the Military     To: Rabbi David Eidensohn   In CMR E-Notes earlier this month, I let you know that CMR would be working with officials and delegates who would draft the Republican National Platform.  Having observed and assisted in the process during the week just before the national convention in Cleveland, I am pleased to tell you that CMR's influence is very evident in the finished document. The 2016 Republican National Platform incorporates nine strong planks on military/social issues in a comprehensive section of the document titled "America Resurgent." You can read details in this article, just posted on the CMR website: CMR: 2016 Republican National Platform Rejects Social Experimentation and Political Correctness in the Military The quadrennial platform process moves fast and it calls for preparation as well as coordination with longtime allies, new friends, delegates, and leaders of the party and presidential campaign. I appreciate the efforts of everyone involved, and to you for making it possible for CMR to take a leadership role in making it all happen. This year something unusual happened during the platform-writing process. As reported by Philip Wegmann in the Heritage Foundation Daily Signal, a few petulant activists who were determined to inject the LGBT agenda into the Republican platform used deception in a determined attempt to get their way: Daily Signal: Delegates Accuse LGBT Coalition of Trying to Hijack GOP Platform  This attempt to scrap the entire platform occurred after fellow delegates showed unfailing courtesy in listening to their arguments for divisive planks before voting them down. As the day ended several conservative delegates stepped up to expose deceptive tactics intended to create a fake media story. Don't Draft America's Daughters Now that the convention is over, we have an immediate challenge that will affect every young civilian woman in the nation. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 includes language to "Draft America's Daughters." We need to work with other interested groups and leaders, many of whom worked with us on the platform statement opposing registration of women from the draft, in order to remove offending legislation sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain before lame-duck President Obama gets the chance to sign it into law.  There is an effort in the Senate to make that happen, and it will succeed if Americans' voices rise up nationwide.  Here's what you can do to help right now, while your Senator is at home:  Don't Draft America's Daughters In addition to research that we are doing all the time, CMR is recognized as a primary source of detailed information on military social issues. The May edition of a major academic journal, for example, quoted CMR several times, and published a commentary that I wrote opposite one by the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus: Congressional Quarterly Researcher: Should Women Serve in Combat? CMR Needs Your Help The Obama Administration is not done yet, and the next six months will be perilous for our men and women in uniform. We will continue to do our best to support the troops by reporting and analyzing what is at stake, but our resources are dangerously low. If you support CMR's unique work and would like us to continue and do more, please consider sending a generous, tax-deductible contribution by clicking Your contribution in any amount ˗ $1,000, $500, $250, $100, or $50 ˗ would be appreciated and well-spent. Many thanks for your support - I hope to hear from you soon.   * * * * * *   The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.  Nothing in this article should be construed as an endorsement of any candidate. More information on all issues discussed is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org .

Reb Dovid said he would issue a letter about Tamar marrying without a GET. Where is it?

Important Notice:
I recently  heard from a very reliable source that Rav Dovid Feinstein promised to write a letter to tell Tamar Epstein Friedman to leave her boyfriend that she married without a GET. There is a question if Reb Dovid will do it, as he has not done such a thing for many weeks, as the days are listed on my brother Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog daattorah.blogspot.com . 

I was also waiting for a letter from Reb Dovid, because he established a Beth Din regarding Tamar's remarriage without a GET, and everyone anticipated a pesak in writing. But it never came. Finally, I called up a member of the Beth Din, Rabbi Hillel David, and he told me that the Beth Din has no obligation to issue a public pesak, because the Beth Din was only convened as a favor to Reb Shmuel Kaminetsky. In other words, the Beth Din was just put together to allow Shalom Kaminetsky to accept its pesak, and to free his father from any comment, and thus to restore RSK as a "gadol" rachmono litslon.

Such trickery was denounced in my blog, as it is obvious that a serious Torah scholar has an obligation to speak out against a woman remarrying without a GET, and we are waiting for every member of the Beth Din to fulfill their duty in this regard. But nothing. Therefore, I accuse Reb Dovid and his Beth Din as people who are simply helping a Rosho Gomur RSK to climb out of the tree, without telling Tamar to leave her boyfriend. Therefore, I wrote that Rav Dovid is ראוי לנדותו.

Now that Rav Dovid has said that he would issue such a letter, we are waiting for it. And if it does not appear, we will renew our efforts to denigrate Reb Dovid and his fake Beth Din. 

Again, those who make mamzerim are to be held accountable, especially if they pretend to be Roshei Yeshivas of prominent institutions. That is the worst Chilul HaShem. 

Chaya Mond/Chayie Chinn of Wash DC is now producing children who are mamzerim.

BEWARE - Gedolei hador have paskened that the children of this woman are mamzerim because her GET was forced with terrible physical tortures.

Chaya Mond now called Chayie Chinn remarried without a kosher GET. Her original GET was produced with terrible physical torture on her  husband and is invalid. Children from Mond/Chinn are considered by Gedolei HaDor in Israel, Canada and America to be mamzerim.

Chaya Mond/Chayie Chinn lives now in Washington, DC.

Mamzer Maker Lady in Washington is speaking in a Shull about Torah

I have received an urgent message from a Rov in Israel who works with Gedolim to uproot mamzerim, etc. HIS MESSAGE:

A woman in Washington, DC who calls herself Chayie Chinn remarried after her first husband Mr. Rubin was horribly tortured to force him to give a GET. A forced GET is invalid. Children born from this woman from her new spouse are considered by Gedolei HaDor to be mamzerim. It seems she is speaking somewhere on Torah this Shabbos 7/23/16 in Washington, DC.

Chayie Chinn's real name is Chaya Mond. Her marriage to Mr. Chinn is invalid as she never had a kosher GET from her husband Avrohom Rubin.

BEWARE of this woman and BEWARE of her children, not to marry them.

New Program - Promoting Biblical Family Values

                  Promote Biblical Family Values:

Stop Draft of Women in Military

Stop Sexual Abuse and Rape of  Women in Colleges and the Military

Make Family Affordable

Stop Government Pressure for Anti-Biblical Family Values

By Rabbi David E. Eidensohn Disciple of World’s Greatest Rabbis Aharon Kotler, Moshe Feinstein, and Yosef Shalom Elyashev, all of blessed memory

The Talmud tells us that in the End of Days, prior to the Coming of the Messiah, the Satan will be given great power to do things that never happened in earlier times. Although great sins always snared people, there were still some standards. For instance, there are sins of eating forbidden good and stealing, and yet these sins are common with some people. But even people who do many sins refrained from insulting their parents or the parents of their spouse. But in the era before the Coming of Messiah family values will collapse, not everywhere, but relative to earlier times. New sins in family will appear. “A son will berate his father, the wife her mother-in-law.”

The new level of sin is the profaning of Derech Erets, the Way of the World. This means, that people have an innate appreciation of how to behave as people, as human beings. Before the arrival of Messiah the ability to refrain from behavior that defiles our humanity will be weakened. The most sensitive level of Derech Erets is with family, how we treat our parents especially. True, dealing with all human beings is Derech Erets, the Way of the World, a holy obligation upon each person created “in the Image of G-d.” But there is a special and higher level of treating our parents properly. After all, they brought us into the world and they raised us, and we must show our appreciation. If a stranger raised us, would we not appreciate it? Surely, if our parents have us as children and raise us for many years, we must honor them. This is the highest level of Derech Erets, the Way of the World. And before the Coming of Messiah, the Satan will have the power to loosen this appreciation even though before that time people generally honored their parents.

We find in the Written Bible, the Torah, three sections. Torah, Prophets, and Holy Writings. Torah is the Five Books of Moses and basic history and laws. Prophets is the work of the prophets. Holy Writings are entire books such as Psalms of David, the Book of Job, the Book of Daniel, etc.

The end of the second section of the Bible, the Prophets, is about Elijah the Prophet. G-d spoke of the Redemption and said, “I am going to send you Elijah the Prophet … and he will restore the hearts of the fathers to the sons, and the hearts of the sons to the fathers…lest I come and destroy the world.” It is very rare for a biblical book to end on a bad note, one of curse and punishment. But if the world does not respond to Elijah’s efforts to restore Derech Erets, the Way of the World, and the feeling of humanity in family, G-d will destroy the world.

This is our time and our challenge.

There is a book taught by Elijah to a great rabbi of the Talmud known as Tono Divei Eliyohu, the Teachings of the Yeshiva of Elijah. The first lesson there is that Derech Erets, behaving like a human being to other human beings, is greater than the Torah. This has become a popular phrase, “Derech Erets precedes the Torah.” And today, in times of great testing and great evil, the Satan is empowered to test us with Derech Erets. And we must withstand the pressures.

The gemora that talks about this testing time adds that things will be so difficult that “We have nobody to rely upon other than our Father in Heaven.” Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, the greatest disciple of the Chofetz Chaim explained, “This does not mean we should despair. It means that G-d is with us when we struggle even against the darkest day in our history and the furious power of the Satan. We will merit the Coming of Messiah because we trust in G-d and defend ourselves against the prevailing temptations to violate Derech Erets even in family matters.

Stop Draft of Women in Military

The above gemora mentions that in the End of Days before Messiah arrives, governments will deny biblical values. In America we have President Obama working very hard to use the military as a tool to violate biblical family values. He has appointed an openly gay person as a very senior general, and has turned the traditional male military into a male-female army. Now, women are weaker and smaller than men. You never heard of a woman who can play on a professional football team. But Obama worked hard to bring women into the military and shoot it out and smash and stab men who are stronger than women. What will happen to the weaker ladies? But Obama does this not because it enhances the military, but because it enhances equity, equity with ladies who belong in the house raising children, and equity with men who are openly gay and who will influence the military to become accepting of gay actions, even publicly. Woe to an American lady who is captured by ISIS. Her life will be a slavery publicized for the entire world to see the horror that Obama created for American women.

Biblical Family Values means that we take a look at Harvard and its tragic failure to protect women from rape, see below the entire article. We also want to publish facts on abuse in the American military which is a growing failure with no end to the most hideous suffering of women who joined the military voluntarily. Now the government is getting ready to force all American women into the military where even more of them can be raped. In this article, we deal mostly with Harvard, as the military has a huge annual book with the stats on rape and abuse, and we can’t use all of that stuff right now. But the Harvard article is only a few pages long, and it says very important things, so now we will talk about Harvard, and hopefully, in a later article, we will deal with the military. The military has some very complex problems that has created a great uproar in the United States Senate and elsewhere, and we have to do that separately. Now back to Harvard.

In September of 2015 the Harvard Gazette, the official publication of Harvard University, devoted much space to the problem of women being raped and abused sexually in Harvard College. The article is published here below. But we quote here some very troubling parts of that article. In the article, these sections are in red, as they are here.

The survey found that sexual harassment is a problem for women students all across the University, with 72.7 percent of undergraduate women reporting an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard, while fewer than 62 percent of undergraduate women in the broader 27-school survey reported such incidents.

Almost half of Harvard’s female graduate and professional School students reported being harassed, and 21.8 percent of these women said a faculty member had sexually harassed them.

Here is the article. I find it amazing that the smartest professors of Harvard are wondering why Harvard came out so poorly regarding suffering of women there. For one thing, here is a part of that article: But when asked how likely University officials were to take action against an offender, 46 percent of female undergraduates said they had little or no confidence that they would. In addition, 84 percent expressed some doubt any action would be taken. Overall, 68 percent of Harvard students surveyed were dubious of follow-through against offenders.

How in the world could Harvard’s geniuses who run the school have ignored the most basic thing that is to create confidence that a molester would be punished? If that wasn’t done, what are they doing about these things?

But allow me to conclude with my thoughts about Harvard and the military. These are both organizations with tremendous talent and money. But saving women from rape is beyond their ability.

Biblical Family Values are the answer. In my family, boys and girls never mix, ever. A secular writer once commented in amazement about how in Israel the ultra-Orthodox girls are virgins. It is nothing to be amazed about. Ultra-Orthodox children are mostly virgins. But when you go to Harvard, and are not home, but in a dormitory that is flowing with men and women who are boiling with biology, and drinking and who knows what else, you are going to have rape and abuse.

Another point. My children and ultra-Orthodox children marry young. When you have people earning a  doctorate before they marry, you get Harvard. Thus, the military and Harvard and modern colleges with co-ed dormitories will never be free of rape and abuse. And yet, they will never be honest enough to accept that without separation of male and female there will always be suffering women. They know it, of course, but since their purpose in life is to be modern, they have to accept that women will be raped and too bad because it is more important to be modern.

Troubling findings on sexual assault

Harvard’s portion of national study paints disturbing picture

September 21, 2015 | Editor's Pick

Jon Chase/Harvard Staff Photographer

President Faust discussed the survey results with students Monday night at the Science Center.

Show more

By Christina Pazzanese, Harvard Staff Writer

EmailTwitterFacebook

In tandem with the release of findings from a new national survey of college and university students about sexual assault, the University’s Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault made Harvard’s data public Monday, including results that paint a disturbing picture of sexual misconduct here on campus.

In a 13-page letter to President Drew Faust, Task Force Chairman Steven E. Hyman said that the survey, which was administered to nearly 20,000 degree-seeking students enrolled at Harvard College, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS), and the 10 professional Schools last spring, makes clear that sexual assault is “a serious and widespread problem that profoundly violates the values and undermines the educational goals of this University.”

Women at Harvard College appear especially vulnerable to sexual assault, the survey said. More than 60 percent of women in the College’s Class of ’15 responded to the survey. Of those, 31 percent said they had experienced some sort of unwanted sexual contact at Harvard. Ninety women characterized that contact as what the survey termed “nonconsensual completed or attempted penetration involving physical force, incapacitation or both,” the most serious category of misconduct. This group comprises 16 percent of female College seniors.

Faust finds results “deeply disturbing”

In an email to students, faculty, and staff, Faust called the survey results “deeply disturbing” and said the findings reinforce the “alarming frequency” with which Harvard students experience sexual assault, and she called for a Monday evening meeting to discuss the results with them.

“All of us share the obligation to create and sustain a community of which we can all be proud, a community whose bedrock is mutual respect and concern for one another. Sexual assault is intolerable, and we owe it to one another to confront it openly, purposefully and effectively,” Faust wrote.

The survey was part of an effort led by the Association of American Universities (AAU), a consortium of 62 research universities, to better understand the nature and pervasiveness of sexual assault, harassment, and other misconduct on college campuses. More than 150,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students at 27 private and public research universities across the country took part, making it one of the largest surveys of its kind.

Overall, 19.3 percent of eligible students responded to the AAU survey, though rates at each institution varied depending on the type of school and size. At Harvard, 53 percent of the eligible students participated, the highest rate among the universities surveyed. Faust said she took that as a “positive sign” that students recognize sexual assault as a serious issue.

Harvard fared slightly better than the averages reported by students in the national survey aggregate. Four percent of Harvard students surveyed said they had at least one incident of nonconsensual sexual contact last year. Additionally, 1.4 percent said the contact was completed, or involved attempted penetration by use of force, incapacitation, or both. Nationally, 6.5 percent of students reported some form of unwanted of sexual contact, while 2.4 percent reported penetration or attempted penetration by force or incapacitation.

Last April, the Harvard task force asked students to complete an online survey about sexual assault. Students were asked a series of questions about various kinds of sexual misconduct that they may have encountered while they were enrolled at the University, regardless of where or when the incident took place, or whether the perpetrator was part of the Harvard community. The survey focused on nonconsensual sexual activity conducted through the use of physical force, incapacitation, or both.

The survey found that sexual harassment is a problem for women students all across the University, with 72.7 percent of undergraduate women reporting an incident of harassment during their time at Harvard, while fewer than 62 percent of undergraduate women in the broader 27-school survey reported such incidents.

Almost half of Harvard’s female graduate and professional School students reported being harassed, and 21.8 percent of these women said a faculty member had sexually harassed them.

“We must commit ourselves to being a better community than the one the survey portrays,” Faust wrote in her email. “It is up to all of us to ensure that Harvard is a realization of our ideals, not our fears.”

Also in response, Rakesh Khurana, Danoff Dean of Harvard College, announced that the College would host three town-hall style discussions with staff from the Office of Sexual Assault and Prevention this week.

“We have it in our power to make Harvard better,” he said in a message to students. “This is a moment for all of us to take stock of what we stand for as a community” and to make the necessary changes to better Harvard and the world.

At a 90-minute meeting Monday evening before an overflow crowd at the Science Center, Faust and Khurana answered questions from students following a presentation of the survey results by David Laibson ’88, the Robert I. Goldman Professor of Economics. Laibson, who serves on the task force and chairs the Economics Department, was closely involved in the survey’s design and analysis.

As an institution of higher education, learning from these survey results “is something we are especially equipped to do,” Faust said.

“We want to use those skills to figure out how can we combat this, how can we make it stop, and how can we help the individuals who are trapped in these terrible, terrible circumstances from ever having to have those kinds of things happen to them again. How can we help future students not have to confront the same realities?” she said. “Let’s use every tool that we have to make this a better place.”

Students attending the community meeting asked that the University offer more opportunities to gather in both large and smaller groups not just to discuss their views about sexual assault policy initiatives and programs, but also to comfortably share their experiences in the hopes of learning more about the underlying issues that contribute to such traumatic incidents. Many expressed support for better and faster access to mental health services and the creation of “safe spaces” so that final clubs events were not a focus of undergraduate social life.

Noting the essential value that students derive by socializing and learning from Harvard’s diverse student population, Khurana appeared to signal that single-sex entities like final clubs may face greater scrutiny in the near future.

“Any organization that attaches itself, recognized or unrecognized, to Harvard, recruits from Harvard students and enjoys any sort of status by being affiliated with the College has to be in synchronization with the mission of the College,” he said.

Alcohol use a major risk factor

Unsurprisingly, the use of drugs and alcohol as a “tactic” or precursor to sexual assault on college campuses accounts for a “significant” percentage of reported incidents, the AAU survey found.

At Harvard, when students were asked if anyone had been consuming alcohol before an incident of completed or attempted penetration when incapacitation was a factor, 89 percent of respondents said they had been drinking, while 79 percent said the perpetrator had been drinking.

“The percent of alcohol is so high that prevention efforts are not likely to succeed if we do not, as part of our final report, suggest approaches to decreasing the harm associated with student drinking,” Hyman wrote in his letter to Faust.

More than 75 percent of Harvard College women reported the assaults took place in student Houses, while at least 15 percent said they occurred at what the survey categorized as “single-sex organizations that were not fraternities or sororities,” a category that most closely aligns at Harvard with the non-affiliated final clubs.

Not serious enough to report?

One reason why reliable information about the pervasiveness of sexual assault on college campuses is so hard to come by, analysts say, is that, historically, few students choose to report such incidents to someone in law enforcement, at a university, or at another organization. The AAU survey bears out this unsettling truth. Just 5 to 28 percent of students nationally said they had reported an incident, depending on the type of misconduct. Among those who said they did not report an incident, the most common reason given was a belief that it was not serious enough to warrant action. Other explanations included that the student felt “too embarrassed, ashamed, or that it would be too emotionally difficult” to report the incident, or that she or he “did not think anything would be done about it.”

On that score, Harvard appears no different. Here, 80 percent of female undergraduates who said they had been penetrated as a result of incapacitation did not formally report the assault, while 69 percent who said they were penetrated by the use of physical force did not report the instances.

Fifty-four percent of Harvard student respondents who said they “had seen or heard someone acting in a sexually violent or harassing way” did nothing to intervene. A full 80 percent who said they had seen a “drunk person heading for a sexual encounter” indicated that they did not take any action.

Hyman said the survey results are “entirely congruent” with testimony that the task force has heard since its formation. “The fact that Harvard data is quite similar to that of other private universities within the AAU gives little comfort,” he wrote to Faust. Noting the “deeply ingrained” nature of sexual assault, Hyman wrote, “It reminds us that we cannot simply make and implement a series of recommendations and consider that we have done our work.”

Messages on assault not being received

Despite initiating several efforts in the last two years to better confront sexual assault on campus, such as the adoption of the University-wide Title IX policy, the establishment of the Office for Dispute Resolution to investigate misconduct, and the addition of 50 Title IX coordinators to work across Harvard on such issues, many students said they are not well-informed about where to get support, how to report sexual assault or misconduct, how the University defines sexual assault and misconduct, or what happens after a report is made.

Just 24 percent of Harvard students said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about where to go for help, and only 20 percent said they were very or extremely knowledgeable about where to report an incident. When asked what happens after a report is filed, 82 percent said the process wasn’t entirely clear to them, and only 15 percent said they fully understood what constitutes sexual assault or misconduct at Harvard. In all four areas, the percentage of Harvard students who said they were very or extremely knowledgeable was consistently smaller than the national survey average.

“Clearly, we must do more,” Faust wrote. “University leaders — starting with the president, the provost, and the deans — bear a critical part of the responsibility for shaping the climate and offering resources to prevent sexual assault and [to] respond when it does occur.”

To that end, Faust has asked the deans from each School to prepare “school-specific plans” that begin to facilitate community discussion, engagement, and action surrounding the survey findings.

The task force and the University’s Institutional Research Office will further analyze the survey data to better understand the full results. In January, the task force will submit a report and make recommendations to Faust.

Confidence in the University’s ability to handle sexual assault cases vigorously and appropriately varies widely.

Although 61 percent of all Harvard students think the University is “very or extremely likely” to take a report of sexual assault seriously, only 43 percent of female undergraduates at the College and at the Division of Continuing Education said they feel that way.

Asked if they thought the University would conduct a fair investigation of any reported assault claim, 41 percent of Harvard students said they were only “somewhat” certain officials would do the job properly, while 29 percent said the process was “very” likely to be fair. Female undergraduates were a bit more skeptical, with 45 percent saying a fair investigation was “somewhat” likely.

But when asked how likely University officials were to take action against an offender, 46 percent of female undergraduates said they had little or no confidence that they would. In addition, 84 percent expressed some doubt any action would be taken. Overall, 68 percent of Harvard students surveyed were dubious of follow-through against offenders.

The national survey was designed to provide university communities, federal policymakers, and educational researchers with greater insight into the scope, frequency, and nature of sexual assault and misconduct on American college campuses, the AAU said in a press statement issued Monday.

The survey results come amid growing pressure on colleges and universities from the Obama administration, Congress, the Department of Education, and activists to codify and make transparent their procedures for investigating, disciplining, and reporting sexual assault cases, as well as the case outcomes.

Other participating Ivy League schools included Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania and Yale University. Public universities involved included the University of Virginia, the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Texas at Austin, among others.

END OF HARVARD ARTICLE

This is the end of this, our first discussion on Biblical Family Values.

We invite everyone to write us what they think about our work, with comments. We also invite new people to join our email list.

Shalom,

Dovid E. Eidensohn

Monsey, NY 10952

845-578-1917

dddeid@verizon.net

from my brother Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog daattorah.blogspot.com - The Kaminetsky perversion of the halacha, must a Gadol give permission to complain?

from my brother Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog daattorah.blogspot.com:

Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Summary: Does a gadol have to give permission to protest against Rav Shmuel Kaminetky's heter Question: Regarding my posts about the terrible perversion of Torah and halacha that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has engineered with his production of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter - how could I publicize this matter without a psak from gedolim (i.e. Daas Torah) that it was permitted and also being told explicitly what kind of publicity should be done?
Answer:
1) Rav Sternbuch in his letters regarding this matter has made it clear that we are required to  publicize and protest this perversion where a woman was allowed to remarry without first receiving a Get. He does not mention anything about remaining quiet unless you personally receive a psak to protest.
November 2015 letter          November 2015 parsha sheetJanuary 2016 letter
2) However even without Rav Sternbuch's explicit statement as well as the many public letters of major rabbis attacking this heter - there is no halachic source which requires a person to ask a person viewed as a gadol or even ask a rabbi. Obviously if the determination that something wrong has been done comes from a single individual it is a good idea to confirm with a competent rabbi that his evaluation is correct. But in the case of this "heter" there are many strong letters of condemnation from major rabbis and there are no dissenting voice that the heter is valid - that is simply not an issue. The consensus is that Tamar is an eishis ish who is living with a man who is not her husband.

If Tamar Epstein Friedman has a baby with her friend with no GET and the baby is a mamzer, should she name the baby after her deceased father?

From my brother Rabbi Dr. Daniel Eidensohn's blog daattorah.blogspot.com

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: Should they name their mamzer son after her father?

After universal condemnation and rejection of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt "heter" - the couple is still living together. Neither R Greenblatt nor the Kaminetsky's seem to feel it necessary for the couple to separate despite clear consensus that they are committing adultery. 

This raises in interesting question of kibud av. Given that her father was niftar - it seems reasonable that when they have a son that she would name him after her father. The question is whether honoring her father by naming a mamzer after him is truly honoring her father's memory? On the other hand if she doesn't name her son after her father that shows that she acknowledges  that her marriage is not valid according to halacha and she is disgracing his memory by merely remaining in the phony marriage.

A related question is whether Rav Shmuel or Sholem Kaminetsky  or Rav Greenblatt would be the sandek for their son? Is it considered an honor to be a sandek for a mamzer? On the other hand if they refused the "honor" that would mean that they acknowledge that the child is a mamzer that they were responsible for creating. 

For those close to these gedolim, I would appreciate if you asked them these questions. I will publish their answers. If you can get them to explain why they haven't told the couple to separate - even after the Kaminetsky's accepted Rav Dovid Feinstein's psak that the heter is garbage - it would also be appreciated.

Most women can't be in combat so why are they drafted? Center for Military Readiness

Center for Military Readiness June 26, 2016

Eilleen Donnally

Myths about gender equality in the military are starting to crumble under the pressure of actual experience. Witness the recent Associated Press report that 6 of 7 female Marine recruits failed to qualify in training for direct ground combat assignments. The women deserve credit for trying, but it matters that 86 percent of them, compared to 3 percent of the men, could not meet gender-neutral tests of upper body strength, stamina, and running speed.

Mostly-civilian “experts” had predicted that 200 women per year would qualify for ground combat assignments. The emperor's new clothes, it seems, are getting a bit gauzy. A few women can meet minimal combat arms standards, but the fact remains that most women cannot meet them while most men can. In a future national emergency making it necessary to reinstate Selective Service, it would not make sense to order all women to register as if they were the physical equals of men.

Common sense nevertheless was missing during a closed-door meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19. Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) approved surprise legislation that would force young civilian women to register for a possible future draft. Then the full Senate rubber-stamped the McCain mandate for co-ed conscription as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, without a separate vote. Since the House did not approve similar legislation, conference committee members reconciling both versions of the defense bill should drop Chairman McCain’s “draft America’s daughters” legislation. If lame-duck President Barack Obama gets the opportunity, he will sign the McCain mandate into law, doing harm to every young woman of draft age in America. Flawed gender-equality theories and misinformation have blurred harsh realities. It is not true, for example, that Selective Service would only induct young women for traditional positions supporting combat troops. The last time Congress debated this issue, a Senate report clearly stated that the only legitimate purpose of Selective Service registration is to speed the process of finding and training “combat replacements” for troops who are fighting and dying on the battlefield. No one is drafted to play clarinet in the Marine band.

Contrary to vague claims about “equality” or “fairness,” the brutal, physically-exhausting nature of direct ground combat against ruthless adversaries is not “equal” or “fair” to anyone. It is not even civilized. Both the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, and researchers conducting extensive tests for the U.S. Marine Corps from 2012 to 2015, produced definitive findings that can be summarized in one sentence: “In the infantry and other direct ground combat units that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or help fellow soldiers to survive.”

Instead of reality-based debate about national security, we hear petulance from “egalitarian sexists” and “hostile proponents” who resent feminists and blame military women for “gender diversity” quotas. “You asked for equality,” they taunt, even though an official survey found that less than 8 percent of Army women wanted to serve in the combat arms. Civilian women’s views haven’t been sought at all. 

Patriotic women have always served and sacrificed in our nation’s wars. They will volunteer to do so again. As for claims that women need close combat experience to be promoted ˗ Defense Department figures repeatedly have shown that for decades, women have been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men. Responsible members of Congress have yet to conduct open hearings with independent experts who would explain why the Obama Administration should have respected the Marine Corps’ request to keep infantry and other fighting forces all-male. Oversight requires an objective review of field research exercises in which all-male teams displayed greater speed and lethality in 69 percent of scientifically-monitored tests. Injury rates among women were two to six times greater than men’s, and even higher injury rates in load-bearing infantry units would seriously detract from mission readiness.

Everyone hopes it will never be necessary to reinstate the draft, but Selective Service registration of young men remains a relatively low-cost insurance policy to defend America if multiple threats overwhelm our shrinking All-Volunteer Force. If the McCain mandate for co-ed conscription becomes law and a catastrophic national emergency makes it necessary to reactivate Selective Service, officials would have to call up both women and men, ages 18-26, in roughly equal numbers. The administrative burden of culling thousands of women, just to find the theoretical one-in-seven who might be qualified, would actually hinder the speed and lethality needed to respond to an existential military threat. As stated in a previous Senate report, “[A]n induction system that provided half men and half women to the training commands in the event of mobilization would be administratively unworkable and militarily disastrous.”

In 1981 the Supreme Court deferred to Congress’ judgment and upheld the constitutionality of women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations. Women were not eligible to serve in direct ground combat, noted the Court, but Congress had the constitutional authority to decide. They still do. Congress should recognize the absurdity of registering or drafting thousands of young women – 86 percent of whom are not qualified to be “combat replacements” in time of war. If Congress made a rational choice to exempt women from infantry assignments as well as Selective Service, the Supreme Court very likely would uphold the right of Congress to decide. First, however, Congress should do no harm. Conferees should remove the “draft America’s daughters” language from the defense bill, and the next Commander-in-Chief should order military leaders to conduct an open, objective, and honest review of the impact of recent social experiments on military readiness. The next administration could restore sound priorities, but responsible members of Congress need to step up and help.

* * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan educational organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues. More information is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org. To support CMR with a tax-deductible contribution, click here. You can also support CMR by visiting, liking, and sharing the CMR Facebook page.