posted
The Supreme Court is about to hear arguments on "whether the federal government may order law schools to give military recruiters the same access as other prospective employers. Currently, federal funds can be withdrawn from an entire university if one of its schools bans military recruiters."
posted
I can't imagine a good reason for a school to deny military recruiters access. Isn't it in their student's best interest to have as many choices to choose from as possible?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reasons the law schools are denying the military recruiters access is that the recruiters discriminate against homosexuals. That's the basis of the argument - I don't know where it follows from there, however.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason that law schools are limiting recruiter access, according the NPR this morning. The law schools have an agreement not to help any organization recruit that refuses to sign a promise not to discriminate based on race, religion, sex, or sexual preference.
The military discriminates based on sexual preference. (Don't ask don't tell)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The law schools' arguments are tenuous. They essentially argue that their free speech rights are being violated because the government is forcing them to accept military recruiters. By allowing such recruiters on campus, so the argument goes, the schools are implicitly approving of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which is in contradiction to these schools non-discrimination policies. These arguments, however, fail to hold much water because, at least at the law school I went to, the administration published a letter and email before the recruiters visited campus disavowing the military's policies and law professors/administrators are free to protest the military's presence any time they like, and often do. All schools are able to voice their oppostion to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and, given the liberal nature of most law schools, very few people will actually think they approve of the policy just because a recruiter is interviewing in the building (often in the basement, next to the boiler. Do buildings have boilers anymore?) The schools are not being compelled to adopt any speech but, rather, are subject to a condition on spending, which are generally valid as long as the condition bears a rational relation to a legitimate government interest. My guess: Supreme Court upholds the Solomon Amendment, the law requiring military access, as a rational condition.
Oh, and law schools aren't always interested in their students best interest, but are interested in pushing their own political and social agendas.
posted
Nope, mr_porteiro_head. If students couldn't have voted for/against the people who'd send them to war, they shouldn't be allowed to enlist; let alone have recruiters chasing after them
However, graduate schools such as for Law are primarily filled with folks over 22years old: ie nearly all of them could have voted in the last Presidential&Senatorial Elections. That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for recruiters to be denied access to graduate students. Except the political bigotry of those who administer the graduate school; and bigotry ain't an acceptable excuse for nothin'.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pending someone here giving me something new to think about, my instinctive reaction is to agree with the feds.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope, mr_porteiro_head. If students couldn't have voted for/against the people who'd send them to war, they shouldn't be allowed to enlist; let alone have recruiter chasing after them
Can you enlist when you're under 18?
(Or are you saying that if you weren't 18 in 2004 you should not be able to enlist?)
I don't agree. Enlisting is voluntary. I don't see the relevance of whether or not you were able to vote in the last election.
I would be more inclined to agree in the case of a draft, though.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. How old you were last election has no bearing on whether a recruiter can talk to you or not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't imagine a good reason for a school to deny military recruiters access. Isn't it in their student's best interest to have as many choices to choose from as possible?
Sadly enough, the best interest of the students is not always the driving force behind law school policies.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the aren't really being "put in" anything. They are volunteering. If they don't approve of the military or the choices made by political leaders, they need not enlist. Enlisting in the military is a much stronger statement of support than is voting.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for recruiters to be denied access to graduate students.
This is untrue. The military does not meet my college's criteria for on-campus job recruitment, for example. The only reason they're permitted to be an exception is that the federal funds we receive in order to make it possible for students without means to attend require that we make an exception for them. The government has poisoned that candy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, a person who hasn't voted for his/her leadership is being put in a position of complying with laws that s/he had no voice in making. When complying with the Law is a matter of life of death, an act becomes voluntary only after one has had a say in the matter through voting.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that it is ethically wrong for anyone to be put in a kill or be killed situation without having already had a say in the matter.
They do have a choice to not enlist and therefore never be in that situation at all.
quote:Since rights and obligations are granted across an age group -- eg driving at 16; drinking at 18; age discrimination at 40 -- an across-the-board voting age of 18 creates an ethical mandate that the enlistment age be 22years old.
No, that ethical mandate (if it exists at all) only means that the draft age must be 22 years old.
quote: That being the case, there is no reason whatsoever for recruiters to be denied access to graduate students.
This is untrue. The military does not meet my college's criteria for on-campus job recruitment, for example. The only reason they're permitted to be an exception is that the federal funds we receive in order to make it possible for students without means to attend require that we make an exception for them. The government has poisoned that candy.
What criteria do they not meet? Is it that they are in violation of your school's non-discrimination policy or is there another regulation that the military has not satisfied?
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
In a general sense, I think this is one of the biggest abuses of government power.
The federal government taxes the citizens more than it needs to, and then "gives back" that money with strings attached in order to force compliance in things that the federal government should not be involved in at all.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: No, a person who hasn't voted for his/her leadership is being put in a position of complying with laws that s/he had no voice in making. When complying with the Law is a matter of life of death, an act becomes voluntary only after one has had a say in the matter through voting.
Does this mean that people under the age of 18 do no have to comply with laws prohibiting murder? Those are laws that are a matter of life and death, and minors have not had a say in them. What about traffic regulations? Safety regulations?
Further, enlisting in the military is not compelled by the law. It is a voluntary act. No one is currently forced to go into the military. Your "have to be a voter before I have to obey the law" is not applicable to the voluntary entrance into the military.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the schools case is not about free speech, but about free association. They have a list of moral criteria that organizations must meet to get thier help. The military has a different set of moral criteria, so does not meet that. The goverment wants to force these school to include the military into their association despite the fact that they believe that the military is short on this moral criteria.
In other words, this is the opposite but identical argument made by the doctors who refused to perform fertility treatments on a homosexual couple.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Actually, the schools case is not about free speech, but about free association. They have a list of moral criteria that organizations must meet to get thier help. The military has a different set of moral criteria, so does not meet that. The goverment wants to force these school to include the military into their association despite the fact that they believe that the military is short on this moral criteria.
In other words, this is the opposite but identical argument made by the doctors who refused to perform fertility treatments on a homosexual couple.
You may be right about FAIR's (the group actually named as respondent) argument, I have not seen their brief. The ACLU's Amicus brief, however, stresses the Free Speech, or right not to speak, argument.
The free association argument may be better than the free speech argument, but I still think it will probably fail simply because of Congress' incredibly broad powers under the spending clause of the Constitution (spending only has to be for the "general welfare")
EDIT: I just looked at FAIR's brief and they make both the free speech and free association arguments.
quote:In other words, this is the opposite but identical argument made by the doctors who refused to perform fertility treatments on a homosexual couple.
Not quite. If the fertility treatment received government funds, then it would be opposite but identical.
It is precisely because of those government funds that the government is trying to force them to allow the miliatary.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify - the government isn't trying to force colleges to accept military recruiters because the colleges use government funds. That's merely the method the government is using in its attempt.
I'm fully sympathetic with the schools' position. They have every right to not support discriminatory organizations. I'm also somewhat sympathetic to the military's position. My solution would be to do away with 'Don't ask, don't tell' and its ilk, but that's not going to happen. I don't know.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The government has poisoned that candy.
In a general sense, I think this is one of the biggest abuses of government power.
The federal government taxes the citizens more than it needs to, and then "gives back" that money with strings attached in order to force compliance in things that the federal government should not be involved in at all.
That's a good point. I'll be chewing on that one for a while.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No one HAS to take the money from the Government, either. If they do then the Government gets at least SOME say in how it is used, IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I haven't posted here in forever, but I feel everyone should have a few more facts then what they are working with here. One of the lawyers that is representing FAIR came to speak at my law school, and so I got to hear about specific instances that almost certainly violate First Amendment rights. The only question in my mind is whether the Solomon Act is unconstitutional on its face, or just how the Department of Defense is currently interpreting it.
The DOD is not just asking for access to campuses in order to recruit students. It is asking for equal to or better treatment then any other employers that recruit on campuses. If Big Law Firm A gets a resume drop, a conference room, and some free coffee while conducting interviews, the law school better give military recruiters the same, or be threatened with loss of funding. The DOD has also sent threatening letters to schools that have allowed student protests of the Solomon while recruiters are on campus. The letters indicated that the DOD thought that allowing non-preferential treatment and allowing students protests "sends the message" that the school does not approve of the Amendment. Um, yes, it does that message. And the the school should be able to send that message. And student should *certainly* not be pressured into ceasing protests. That goes right to the heart of free speech on campuses. No school has lost such funding yet, but these are still pretty hefty threats.
I think it's also significant that the DOD threatens the *entire* university, not just the law school, with loss of funding. Given how much funding universities get from the feds, it's obviously a coercive threat, and an effective one. Law school know that they can't jeopardize their parent institutions funding, so they don't. I know my law school hesitated putting their name down as supporting FAIR simply on these grounds.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Frankly, I think universities are grossly overfunded as it is.
I disagree with you, but this topic isn't really the place for that discussion. If you really feel this way, perhaps you should start a new topic for us all to discuss it.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't know if what the FAIR lawyer told you is true or not, but I will presume that it is, at least for the sake of argument. One of my former law professors was slightly involved in the drafting of the Law Professors and Law Students organization that filed an amicus in support of the government and his information indicated that the reports of DOD personnel wanting to stop protests is overblown. On my law school, military recruiters were heavily protested (usually by 10 to 20 times as many people as who actually interviewed) with no suggestion that they should stop. Of course, one instance does not mean it never happened.
Regardless, FAIR is attacking the Solomon Amendment on its face and this facial attack simply does not hold up. Law schools, administration, professors, and students have ample opportunity to protest/state their views in opposition to the military. It is virtual impossible to walk onto a law school campus and think that that school approves of the military. Solomon does not compel anybody to say anything, nor does it prevent anybody from saying anything. The free association argument fails under similar analysis. As free speech is not encumbered, this case should be analyzed under the spending clause and, if it is, Solomon will be easily upheld.
As to "threatening" the entire university, its the feds money and, provided they have a legitimate reason to condition their spending, they can set any condition they want to. In this instance, it is legitimate to "threaten" the entire university because, at most universities, the university-wide administration is more likely to be in favor of military recruiters than would the more liberal law school administration/faculty. By placing the funding for the entire university in jeopardy, the government is more likely to accomplish what he wants. (This is a legal argument, not a moral argument. Perhaps what the government is doing is wrong, but the legal issues are what I am addressing)
Finally, though it is only tangentially related to the FAIR case, I have personally seen instances where military recruiters are treated much more poorly than other recruiters by a law school. Given small, cramped interview rooms in buildings other than the law school and away from the other on-campus interviewers. I've also seen students who were interviewing with the military subjected to abuse and derision, which certainly seems a little "intolerant" to me. Of course, maybe the people giving the abuse would prefer that the students "Not Tell" of their support for the military.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked this comment by former Air Force Colonel and JAG attorney Raymond Swenson:
quote:Don't believe this controversy is really about "don't ask, don't tell." Instead, it's about a longstanding animosity. Since the Vietnam War, this animosity by professors toward the military has continued unabated. It killed ROTC programs on many campuses. It is felt by military officers, such as myself, who have applied to attend law school under military scholarships. And it can be seen in the response to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Even if the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy were ended, plaintiffs would claim other reasons for banning the JAG. This isn't a First Amendment case about reforming the military. It's an anti-First Amendment case based on hatred for the military. As such, it should fail.
This is also another interesting article from the front lines.
An excellent discussion about how the Supreme Court is likely to rule on Fair v. Rumsfeld.
Also, an interesting debate between law professors on both sides.
When I was choosing law schools, one of my primary criteria was how the school treated the military. I already spent several long undergraduate years in hostile territory, and I really wanted to concentrate on my studies rather than fighting haters. Fortunately, my law school is in Texas, and they treat us fairly. We experience no discrimination or derision. Our dean proudly brought up the fact that in our first year class there were representatives from every branch, and one of our professors specifically sought out veterans to comment on issues involving the military, such as the Feres Doctrine.
The people on the other side of the debate can frame it all they want that it is not about the individuals in the military, and rather about the government's policy regarding homosexual behavior in the military. Perhaps they really feel that way. But from our side of the battlefield, it bears all the hallmarks of a very personal animosity against the military.
Or, in other words, you may or may not be shooting at me with the noblest of intent, but from my side of the gun, the only thing that is important is that you are shooting at me.
To me, the discrimination against the military because of "Don't ask, don't tell" is counterproductive. If they really wanted to change it, they'd use different tactics other than discriminating in their noble, liberal, nondiscriminatory way against individual recruiters. They'd have the politicians, who are our masters, and who formed the doctrine, change it. They'd encourage leftist students to join the military, and work to change from within. Unfortunately for their cause, their chosen tactic of bigotry and hatred only breeds opposition from the military.
posted
I'd assume there's some truth to reports of the DOD's threats, or FAIR wouldn't be able to refer to court records mentioning such threats. Well, we can go round and round about legal fact finding versus what actually happened. At this point, at least, was is in the court record is not what what is at issue here.
I'll confess that Constitutional Law is next semester, and so my knowledge of what constitutes compelled speech is extremely limited. FAIR talks about the government not being able to compel companies to put unwanted brochures in their mailings. Yet, the government can compel schools to put brochures out wherever the school puts employer brochures. Hmm.
However, just looking at the law cited, I found the section in FAIR's brief about the Supreme Court's reluctance to place conditions on education grants which have nothing to with what the grant will be used for, to be pretty convincing.
But maybe I am letting my moral views get in the way. I don't want the feds to be able to put this kind of pressure on private educational institutions, personally. I'll think about this some more.
Tern: I had the pleasure of having lunch with my dean and we talked about this case for a while. I don't believe that on her part, at least, there's personal hatred of the military. She said to me that she'd long encouraged students of color to join JAG, since they were more likely to quickly get the experience to develop their legal skills and get a good reputation in the field then they were in the private sector. She implied that equal recruitment has not meant equal opportunities on the job. Although, thankfully, that's changing.
My dad was a draftee and did his full tour, although he just missed actually going over to Vietnam by literally a few weeks. He's proud of his training, the education he got using his veteran benefits, and I'm proud of him for using everything the military gave him well. So, uh, not all of us liberal law students just hate the military on principle. Some of us are honestly concerned about the government elbowing its way into how the school conducts its business, when as far as I can see public policy supports non-discriminatory employment practices.
Edit: Some of us actually vote and write our Congressmen on occassion, too. Posts: 794 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
LisB, my point wasn't that liberals/law schools hate the military. An argument can be made for that, perhaps, and I've argued it, but that was immaterial. My point was that the military feels like the law schools/liberals hate them. That's why I suggested a different approach.
I'm looking forward to Con Law next semester, too. I understand that it completely turns the student's understanding of constitutional issues upside down. It's going to be cool.
While I have very strong views concerning homosexual behavior in the military, I think that it is immaterial to whether or not the military should be allowed to recruit. History shows, by the way, that the military was unwelcome on campuses long before homosexuality became a major issue.
I can't see how it's fair that schools can take the gubmint's money, and then tell recruiters for the gubmint to piss off. But one thing I found interesting is that civil rights legislation passed many years ago makes it so that the Solomon Act has to take money away from the whole university, they can't pretend that the law schools are separate.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You sound sincere in your statement that you have positive feelings towards the military, and that's always good to hear. I don't know how you personally approach the issue of homosexual behavior in the military (aside from voting & writing Congresscreatures), but I thought that this post from Scott Johnson at Power Line had a pretty good argument on how to handle it.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But from our side of the battlefield, it bears all the hallmarks of a very personal animosity against the military.
Or, in other words, you may or may not be shooting at me with the noblest of intent, but from my side of the gun, the only thing that is important is that you are shooting at me.
Perhaps your use of military metaphors here is an excellent example of why "animosity towards the military" is a decent thing for a society to have, tern. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's the same attitude that leads to a desire to bar the military - their students are too good to be involved with it. Everyone wants to be defended, but they scorn that which defends.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, isn't it somewhat of an interesting cycle? The people who are speaking against the military (free speech) are speaking against the very force that keeps this country free and keeps their "free speech" right in place. The military is actually defending our rights, (our constitution) and then being lambasted for it by the people they are serving.
In other countries, not only is free speech not allowed, but homosexuality and related free speech for open homosexuality would NOT be allowed.
Sometimes I think Americans forget how good they have it; and that turning in on ourselves (fighting amongst ourselves) is only going to make us weaker.
posted
It's attitudes like that, Tom, that make Jack Nicholson's rant in A Few Good Men so compelling-because in the rant is some truth.
And incidentally, if the candy is poisonous, don't eat it. What this is really about, ultimately, has little to do with opposition to the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, because the school knows the government will not change that in any direction based on a negative outcome of this lawsuit.
This is about an institution which accepts federal money to operate wishing, at the same time, to express their disapproval of the federal government, and stop its students from making a choice. They don't want to just stop their students from wanting to join the military, they'd like to stop the choice ever being offered to them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, I'm just floored at the audacity of this lawsuit. The institution wants to keep receiving federal money, but it doesn't want to permit requests to join the group which defends that government-and itself, no less.
If they don't like the policy, don't take the money. It's rather like a child in college still living under their parent's roof, subsisting on the parent's money, demanding that they get line-item veto privileges over the parent's rules.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The people who are speaking against the military (free speech) are speaking against the very force that keeps this country free and keeps their "free speech" right in place. The military is actually defending our rights, (our constitution) and then being lambasted for it by the people they are serving.
Um. Not to interrupt the self-righteousness, but, no. The protest is against endorsement of a proudly bigoted institution -- it really doesn't matter if that's the Navy or the KKK.
Also, declaring that "in other countries, not only is free speech not allowed, but homosexuality and related free speech for open homosexuality would NOT be allowed" is a rather flawed argument. You know, women in the Middle East aren't circumcised like many African women are. They must be forgetting how good they have it; by turning in on themselves (fighting among themselves), they'll only make themselves weaker.
Lastly, my brother was a Master-At-Arms for the Navy. Are you seriously going to accuse me of "speaking against the military"? Or did you seriously buy into the Republican talking points that liberals hate soldiers, and opposing the Iraq war was failing to "support the troops"?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: The people who are speaking against the military (free speech) are speaking against the very force that keeps this country free and keeps their "free speech" right in place. The military is actually defending our rights, (our constitution) and then being lambasted for it by the people they are serving.
I disagree quite strongly on this point. The military has certainly not defended my rights even once in my lifetime, nor have I ever voted to send them on any mission that would do so. Any "defense" they think they're doing is not only pointless from my perspective but specifically against my own desires. I don't want them to defend my rights on my behalf, and I don't believe they have ever done so.
In this matter, lawyers are far, far more useful than soldiers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The military has certainly not defended my rights even once in my lifetime.
This quite probably is false. If America had zero military strength after WWII, would it have stayed free? Would the USSR have let it be? Quite possibly not.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm skeptical of this one. I was born in 1975, and am not entirely sure that the USSR would have been particularly interested in invading us by that point in their own evolution. *shrug* It's an interesting hypothetical, but I'll leave speculation on the effectiveness of that deterrent to people who liked "Red Dawn."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the university allow fraternities or sororities on campus, or other gender-exclusionary groups? Do members of their administration belong to men-only or (heaven forbid) white- or black-only country clubs, churches, etc?
Any one of those would weaken their stand.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Also, I thought you were older than me. You are not.
And even if Red Dawn hadn't happened, there could have been far-reaching consequences of us not having any military strength.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom seems to be of the mindset that if didn't happen specifically to me in my lifetime then it cannot matter to me nor could it affect me.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. I'm sure the military has been very useful. I believe it will be useful again.
But there's a huge gap between "the military has occasionally been useful" and "the military is with its every breath defending the life you hold dear." The latter is, in a nutshell, simply not true; soldiers defend my life, my freedom, and my lifestyle far less often and far less effectively than policemen, lawyers, firemen, doctors, etc. I We pay soldiers for their career choice, and pay them extra when they actually have to perform their designated duties; I don't see why additional awe is required.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone read Dahlia Lithwick's summary of arguments in Slate? I thought it was interesting. She takes a very pragmatic view that leads her, while personally sympathetic to the law schools, to conclude that "the law schools have no case." And she uses the same Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men connection, which has been used here by others.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We pay soldiers far, far less than we pay policemen, lawyers, firemen, doctors, etc. They extra pay you cite is $150 a month hazardous duty pay which seems to be a very minor amount when people are shooting at you. I would not expect you to see why additional awe, or any awe, is required since you see very little use for the military other than on certain specific occasions. To use your logic, I rarely see a doctor so I suppose that they are not very effective, nor are policemen or fireman. They do not interact with me on a daily basis defending my life so they too are simply not very needed and are obviously overpaid. They have not directly defended my life, my freedom, or my lifestyle. If anything, the police are out to curtail my freedom whenever they can.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ssywak: Does the university allow fraternities or sororities on campus, or other gender-exclusionary groups? Do members of their administration belong to men-only or (heaven forbid) white- or black-only country clubs, churches, etc?
Any one of those would weaken their stand.
Actually, the AALS which most laws schools are members of, have a *specific* regulation against assisting employers that that have discriminatory hiring practices. Members are obligated to investigate complaints of discriminatory practices.
Do you see the distinction?
Posts: 794 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My point was that the military feels like the law schools/liberals hate them. That's why I suggested a different approach. 
