Here is a link to an article from the NY Times about the pressure that Law Schools face from the coercive UD Dept. of Defense.
It seems that schools resisting the awful "don't ask, don't tell" by restricting military presence are facing financial problems.
Funny, I thought the military was supposed to protect freedom....
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/opinion/07FISH.html
Full Version: Law Schools Coerced by Defense Dept
In my last semester in school, I wrote a short paper in which I opposed job-recruiting on school grounds by any outfit that supported such discrimination. A TA graded the papers, and I must have touched a raw nerve. When I got the paper back, it was covered with red ink. That was the only semester in my entire college career in which I did not get an "A" in at least one course, if I recall correctly.
Nobody ...not the Department of Defense ... not the Department of Justice ... is forcing any colleges, public or private, to allow military recruiters on to the campus or into the law schools.
There is, however, a federal law (the "Solomon amendment") that requires colleges to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities as a condition of receiving federal funds ... including research funds. Colleges are free to say "no" to the federal money if they don't like the strings that come with it. Is this permissible? Sure. It was the same way that the federal government forced gender equality on private colleges, although in the famous Grove City College decision, federal student loan money was the camel's nose inside the tent.
I do have a problem with anyone's rights being contingent upon abiding by another's political agenda, no matter how valid the agenda. In a world where some whack-job professor at the University of South Florida is allowed to keep his job and raise money (using the unviersity's name) for Palestinian terrorists, all in the name of "academic freedom," I find it troubling that people would try to keep the military recruiters off college campuses. You don't like "don't ask don't tell"? Fine. Don't sign up to meet with the recruiter.
There is, however, a federal law (the "Solomon amendment") that requires colleges to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities as a condition of receiving federal funds ... including research funds. Colleges are free to say "no" to the federal money if they don't like the strings that come with it. Is this permissible? Sure. It was the same way that the federal government forced gender equality on private colleges, although in the famous Grove City College decision, federal student loan money was the camel's nose inside the tent.
I do have a problem with anyone's rights being contingent upon abiding by another's political agenda, no matter how valid the agenda. In a world where some whack-job professor at the University of South Florida is allowed to keep his job and raise money (using the unviersity's name) for Palestinian terrorists, all in the name of "academic freedom," I find it troubling that people would try to keep the military recruiters off college campuses. You don't like "don't ask don't tell"? Fine. Don't sign up to meet with the recruiter.
[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Nobody ...not the Department of Defense ... not the Department of Justice ... is forcing any colleges, public or private, to allow military recruiters on to the campus or into the law schools.
There is, however, a federal law (the "Solomon amendment") that requires colleges to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities as a condition of receiving federal funds ... including research funds.
By "equal access" does it mean that all branches of the military have the same access as non-military recruiters, or just that one branch of the military has the same access as the other? If it's the latter, here's the solution: put them all in a broom closet in the basement of the building farthest away from everything else on campus.
Nobody ...not the Department of Defense ... not the Department of Justice ... is forcing any colleges, public or private, to allow military recruiters on to the campus or into the law schools.
There is, however, a federal law (the "Solomon amendment") that requires colleges to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities as a condition of receiving federal funds ... including research funds.
By "equal access" does it mean that all branches of the military have the same access as non-military recruiters, or just that one branch of the military has the same access as the other? If it's the latter, here's the solution: put them all in a broom closet in the basement of the building farthest away from everything else on campus.
Dug this old thread out because of a lawsuit filed by a group of law schools and law professors claiming that the Solomon Amendment is a violation of the First Amendment.
Washington Post Opinion Piece on the Solomon Amendment Lawsuit
I really don't think this lawsuit is a good idea. First, do law schools have a First Amendment right? Certainly the professors do, but no one is stopping them from speaking out against the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, and no one is forcing them to recruit on behalf of the military, or deny the discrimination that does exist. Granted, I am appalled that the military would threaten to cut off all funding to the university because of the law school's actions, but I don't think this lawsuit is the right approach.
By keeping the military off the official list of organizations that can recruit law students, I believe the schools are just helping maintain the policy. At no point is the military being challenged - they certainly are not going to lose that many students, as they can recruit through other means. And the students that do speak to the recruiters would be far more likely to support the discrimination, or ignore it, than the average law student.
I say let any employer that discriminates recruit, but require that they publicize their discrimination in all materials and promotions. If the school holds a recruiting fair - put the military and all other discriminatory employers in a special section of the fair - perhaps with a sign alerting students that they may be discriminated against by the employers in that section. In my mind social pressure is the most effective way of dealing with this.
As an added benefit, the military would be exposed to the kind of students it is losing, and not just GLBT ones, but their allies, by continuing the ban. Unless we weaken the support for the ban from inside the military, and to do that there must be a measurable loss from the ban, it won't be effectively removed because the culture won't change. Even if the President were to issue an executive order overturning the ban today (and yes, I realize that's as likely as the President quitting his job to go study with the Dalai Lama) the anti-gay culture that is part of the military (not all of it, mind you, but there are still many pockets of it) will still be there. Life could actually be worse for openly gay military members than for closeted one - attitudes have to change as well as policy.
Washington Post Opinion Piece on the Solomon Amendment Lawsuit
I really don't think this lawsuit is a good idea. First, do law schools have a First Amendment right? Certainly the professors do, but no one is stopping them from speaking out against the Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, and no one is forcing them to recruit on behalf of the military, or deny the discrimination that does exist. Granted, I am appalled that the military would threaten to cut off all funding to the university because of the law school's actions, but I don't think this lawsuit is the right approach.
By keeping the military off the official list of organizations that can recruit law students, I believe the schools are just helping maintain the policy. At no point is the military being challenged - they certainly are not going to lose that many students, as they can recruit through other means. And the students that do speak to the recruiters would be far more likely to support the discrimination, or ignore it, than the average law student.
I say let any employer that discriminates recruit, but require that they publicize their discrimination in all materials and promotions. If the school holds a recruiting fair - put the military and all other discriminatory employers in a special section of the fair - perhaps with a sign alerting students that they may be discriminated against by the employers in that section. In my mind social pressure is the most effective way of dealing with this.
As an added benefit, the military would be exposed to the kind of students it is losing, and not just GLBT ones, but their allies, by continuing the ban. Unless we weaken the support for the ban from inside the military, and to do that there must be a measurable loss from the ban, it won't be effectively removed because the culture won't change. Even if the President were to issue an executive order overturning the ban today (and yes, I realize that's as likely as the President quitting his job to go study with the Dalai Lama) the anti-gay culture that is part of the military (not all of it, mind you, but there are still many pockets of it) will still be there. Life could actually be worse for openly gay military members than for closeted one - attitudes have to change as well as policy.
QUOTE
Charlie in the Trees:
In a world where some whack-job professor at the University of South Florida is allowed to keep his job and raise money (using the unviersity's name) for Palestinian terrorists, all in the name of \"academic freedom,\"
Actually, the "whack-job" professor at the University of South Florida was fired back in late 2001/early 2002.In a world where some whack-job professor at the University of South Florida is allowed to keep his job and raise money (using the unviersity's name) for Palestinian terrorists, all in the name of \"academic freedom,\"
Dr. Sami al-Arian, who supported President George W. Bush and was EVEN PHOTOGRAPHED WITH HIM and Laura Bush, actually was fired first by the university, and subsequently was arrested under the post-9/11 antiterrrorism laws. Al-Arian, who was charged on 50 TERRORIST COUNTS, even went to a briefing with Karl Rove.
Newsday: Trustees agree prof can be fired
Washington Post: Alleged terrorist met with Bush advisor
Salon.com: Al-Arian smeared?
CNN.com: Florida prof charged with terrorist activities
Photo: George & Laura Bush grinning with Sami al-Arian
[img]http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/images/I45418-2003Feb21[/img]
[ November 10, 2003, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
There is at least one other thread at Outsports on this topic.
Court upholds campus military recruiting
[ March 06, 2006, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
Court upholds campus military recruiting
QUOTE
Posted on Mon, Mar. 06, 2006
Court upholds campus military recruiting
GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy on gays.
Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous decision.
....
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.
Court upholds campus military recruiting
GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's \"don't ask, don't tell\" policy on gays.
Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous decision.
....
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.
[ March 06, 2006, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
A simple but completely logical and brilliant from-the-bench decision.
I had some very minor involvement in the litigation for this during law school (trying to get my school's faculty to write an amicus brief and organizing an academic conference), and I don't think anyone was shocked by the outcome, especially after the oral arguments. I was hoping there would at least be a lone dissenter, since it wasn't initially clear that this case could be distinguished from Boy Scouts v. Dale, but I guess Roberts found a way.
To me, the real issue here is Don't Ask Don't Tell and the ban on openly gay soldiers--it's ridiculous that the government is still in the business of subsidizing private discriminatory behavior. But as one of my fellow GLBT classmates said to me, this Solomon Amendment litigation was one of the few ways of getting the children of privilege--particularly those found on law school campuses--to pay attention to the troublesome nature of DADT. It got people talking about the ban, which is inherently a good thing. Speaking of which, I encourage people to support the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group who is doing magnificent work on that front.
Edited to add: One interesting piece of the legislative history of this is--if I remember correctly--the congressman who proposed the 'access for funding' measure did so to punish schools for supporting gay rights, which undercuts the idea that a first amendment interest wasn't at stake here.
[ March 06, 2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
To me, the real issue here is Don't Ask Don't Tell and the ban on openly gay soldiers--it's ridiculous that the government is still in the business of subsidizing private discriminatory behavior. But as one of my fellow GLBT classmates said to me, this Solomon Amendment litigation was one of the few ways of getting the children of privilege--particularly those found on law school campuses--to pay attention to the troublesome nature of DADT. It got people talking about the ban, which is inherently a good thing. Speaking of which, I encourage people to support the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group who is doing magnificent work on that front.
Edited to add: One interesting piece of the legislative history of this is--if I remember correctly--the congressman who proposed the 'access for funding' measure did so to punish schools for supporting gay rights, which undercuts the idea that a first amendment interest wasn't at stake here.
[ March 06, 2006, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Neptune ]
QUOTE
Joe in Philly:
I've heard of schools doing this actually. I've also heard of schools where students formed a circle around the recruiters and protested. The recruiters got so frustrated they left after half an hour.
QUOTE
Charlie in the Trees:
Nobody ...not the Department of Defense ... not the Department of Justice ... is forcing any colleges, public or private, to allow military recruiters on to the campus or into the law schools.
There is, however, a federal law (the \"Solomon amendment\") that requires colleges to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities as a condition of receiving federal funds ... including research funds.
By \"equal access\" does it mean that all branches of the military have the same access as non-military recruiters, or just that one branch of the military has the same access as the other? If it's the latter, here's the solution: put them all in a broom closet in the basement of the building farthest away from everything else on campus. Nobody ...not the Department of Defense ... not the Department of Justice ... is forcing any colleges, public or private, to allow military recruiters on to the campus or into the law schools.
There is, however, a federal law (the \"Solomon amendment\") that requires colleges to allow military recruiters equal access to their facilities as a condition of receiving federal funds ... including research funds.
[quote]Illini_fan:
[quote]Joe in Philly:
[QUOTE]By \"equal access\" does it mean that all branches of the military have the same access as non-military recruiters, or just that one branch of the military has the same access as the other? If it's the latter, here's the solution: put them all in a broom closet in the basement of the building farthest away from everything else on campus. [/quote]I've heard of schools doing this actually. I've also heard of schools where students formed a circle around the recruiters and protested. The recruiters got so frustrated they left after half an hour. [/quote]Yes, people are finding many loopholes. One School's alumni formed the Alumni Career Development group. There aim is to host a career fair off campus, actually at a location across the street. Since they are not affiliated with the college and it is off campus they can invite of not invite whoever they want. If they get enough participants the school will probably not host it's own career fair.
Another college sandwich the armed force recruiters between booths for the ACLU, Lamda Legal, and a couple of other groups.
My favorite story was the student group that dressed up in uniforms and setup a fake recruiting booth. Which include a poster with two soldiers kissing.
[quote]Joe in Philly:
[QUOTE]By \"equal access\" does it mean that all branches of the military have the same access as non-military recruiters, or just that one branch of the military has the same access as the other? If it's the latter, here's the solution: put them all in a broom closet in the basement of the building farthest away from everything else on campus.
[/quote]I've heard of schools doing this actually. I've also heard of schools where students formed a circle around the recruiters and protested. The recruiters got so frustrated they left after half an hour. [/quote]Yes, people are finding many loopholes. One School's alumni formed the Alumni Career Development group. There aim is to host a career fair off campus, actually at a location across the street. Since they are not affiliated with the college and it is off campus they can invite of not invite whoever they want. If they get enough participants the school will probably not host it's own career fair.Another college sandwich the armed force recruiters between booths for the ACLU, Lamda Legal, and a couple of other groups.
My favorite story was the student group that dressed up in uniforms and setup a fake recruiting booth. Which include a poster with two soldiers kissing.
QUOTE
Try here. A statement from the Law School's LGBT group.
[ March 07, 2006, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: fenwayguy ]
That works. I don't know what was wrong. Every time I tried to get the page to open, I got a dialog box saying that an error had been encountered. Some sort of computer thingy. Whatever.
Thanks.
Thanks.
From Inside Higher Education's review of reaction to the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion in Rumsfeld v. FAIR:
Other legal experts questioned whether the law schools and professors who challenged the Solomon Amendment had done so in a way best designed to achieve their ultimate goal. John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University, noted that the court had roundly rejected the views of both FAIR and of groups of constitutional scholars from leading universities that had filed briefs challenging Solomon.
\"One interesting part of today’s ruling,\" Banzhaf wrote in an e-mail message, \"is how so many nationally known law professors at top law schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia (and my own law school) could have been so very wrong in putting together this lawsuit to challenge the Solomon amendment, and in asserting that the statute violated the First Amendment under no less that four different constitutional theories. Every single justice who participated--liberal, conservative, and middle of the road--ruled without exception that all of the legal theories they advanced were without merit.\"
The professors may just have been wrong from a legal standpoint, Banzhaf wrote--but it is even worse, he suggested, if they proceeded with the case because they put their political views, \"based upon their concerns about the underlying interests of gays or their desire to control access to their campus,\" ahead of their legal judgment.
\"When all of their predictions turn out to be so wrong, it only leads credence to the arguments that we law professors live in ivory towers oblivious to the real world, or that our publicly expressed opinions are
based more on liberal guilt than hard-nosed meaningful real-world analysis,\" he said.
QUOTE
Other legal experts questioned whether the law schools and professors who challenged the Solomon Amendment had done so in a way best designed to achieve their ultimate goal. John Banzhaf, a law professor at George Washington University, noted that the court had roundly rejected the views of both FAIR and of groups of constitutional scholars from leading universities that had filed briefs challenging Solomon.
\"One interesting part of today’s ruling,\" Banzhaf wrote in an e-mail message, \"is how so many nationally known law professors at top law schools like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia (and my own law school) could have been so very wrong in putting together this lawsuit to challenge the Solomon amendment, and in asserting that the statute violated the First Amendment under no less that four different constitutional theories. Every single justice who participated--liberal, conservative, and middle of the road--ruled without exception that all of the legal theories they advanced were without merit.\"
The professors may just have been wrong from a legal standpoint, Banzhaf wrote--but it is even worse, he suggested, if they proceeded with the case because they put their political views, \"based upon their concerns about the underlying interests of gays or their desire to control access to their campus,\" ahead of their legal judgment.
\"When all of their predictions turn out to be so wrong, it only leads credence to the arguments that we law professors live in ivory towers oblivious to the real world, or that our publicly expressed opinions are
based more on liberal guilt than hard-nosed meaningful real-world analysis,\" he said.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.