Clash over military recruiters on US college campuses

[T_i_B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1660017,00.html

The US government will today argue that universities must accept military recruiters on campus if they accept federal money in a court case that could have far-reaching implications for college policy.

The Bush administration wants the supreme court to decide whether colleges should accept military recruiters even if they do not want them on campus because of the Pentagon's policy banning openly gay people from the military.

The implications of the ruling, expected to take several months, would likely extend beyond military recruitment and other strings could be attached to federal cash handouts.

In his submissions to the court, solicitor general Paul Clement said "the United States is doing no more than any other donor to, or contractor with, a university might reasonably do" by demanding access for its recruiters. Recruitment has been especially critical since the September 11 attacks, he said.

[MemphisTiger]

1. There was a very good article about this on NPR this morning

it seems as though the government is holding universities hostage with funding.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5040435

[Che_Nuevara]

2. The feds excel at holding people hostage with $.

Example: You ever wonder why ALL 50 states have independent laws making the legal drinking age 21? The drinking age is a matter of state law, not national law, but ...

The National Drinking Age Act of 1984 denies large amounts of $ (under the Federal Highway Aid Act) to states which do not have such laws.

[thecrow]

3. Pentagon's policy banning openly gay people from the military

"The Bush administration wants the supreme court to decide whether colleges should accept military recruiters even if they do not want them on campus because of the Pentagon's policy banning openly gay people from the military"

That's apples and oranges if I ever heard it.
What ass is he Pulling this logic out of???

[Che_Nuevara]

4. all colleges would then have to REMOVE the text

"(College Name) does not discriminate in its admission policies on the basis or factors of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, color, age, country of origin, or status as a veteran of the Vietnam War, in accordance with federal legislation regarding non-discrimination"

from their admissions packets / applications. Of course, in that case, they would lose federal funding in accordance with said laws ...

[happyslug]

6. No they will NOT.

All this lawsuit is saying is that the Collages MUST admit Military Recruiters like any other recruiter even if the School has a policy against permitting recruiters who discriminate based on Sexual orientation. That is ALL. It is important in itself, but the school themselves can still say NO to any other recruiter who discriminate based on Sexual orientation.

Please also note, FEDERAL LAW do NOT address discrimination based on Sexual Orientation, thus unless your State or Local Government has such a law, it is perfectly legal to do such discrimination. In my home state of Pennsylvania the State has NOT passed such a law, through the City of Pittsburgh, City of Philadelphia and Borough of State Collage have done so (The State does forbid discrimination based on Race, Sex, Nationality, age, familial status and disability but NOT Sexual orientation). In the case of the later, those laws do NOT apply to Federal Officials (Including Recruiters) thus not relevant to this case.

Thus the issue is restricted to Collages THAT ACCEPT FEDERAL FUNDS, who refuse to permit Military Recruiters on their campuses do to the Military forbidding Homosexuals into the Military. The Solomon Amendment says if a Collage wants to ban military recruiters it loses all FEDERAL FUNDS. IT does NOT forbid the Collage from opposing the Military or discrimination against Homosexuals, but only says such opposition can NOT extend to Military recruiters if that collage wants Federal Funds.

There is NO RIGHT TO FEDERAL FUNDS, Given that there is no RIGHT to federal funds, Congress can impose whatever restrictions it wants on how federal funds are spent. That is also a Right under the Constitution, a Right equal to the Freedom of Speech and Association. THus the issue before the Court is how to balance these two rights. Given that the Constitution gives exclusive control of the federal funds to CONGRESS, and the Solomon Amendment does NOT forbid the collages from saying they oppose the Military policy, I see the Court upholding the Rule. If you want Federal Funds you have to obey whatever rules Congress imposes on those funds. If you do NOT want to follow those rules, then do NOT take the federal funds.

I know the later is difficult, most students going to School today get some sort of Federal Assistance which under the Grove Collage decision required Grove Collage to follow the Federal restrictions tied in with those funds even if the Collage itself received no Federal funds (Except for Student Aid of its students).

The general rule is if you must dance to the tune being paid for, not the tune you want to dance to. If you do NOT want to dance to that tune, don't dance when someone else is paying.

[Scooter24]

5. I hope we win this case,

but my gut is telling me the government will pull this one out.

I hope I'm wrong though.

[cyberpj]

7. Looks like cspan1 w/have something on this at 11am today:

IN WASHINGTON
Rumsfeld v. FAIR
The Supreme Court hears oral argument in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights (FAIR). The Court will decide the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that requires universities to allow military recruitment on campus or lose federal funds.
TUES. ON C-SPAN AT 11AM ET
CASE DETAILS

http://www.c-span.org/

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Slate has an interesting analysis

So, what kind of equality does the Solomon Amendment require? The equal treatment reading has to be the right one for at least three reasons. First, the amendment talks about equality in the "manner" of access, suggesting that what's at issue is process rather than results. Second, cases like Washington v. Davis make clear that—for better or for worse—the phrase "equal" in American law typically requires equal treatment, not equal outcomes. Third, if the statute entitles the military to actual access in recruiting, all sorts of absurdities result. Military recruiters who preferred to recruit at untraditional times of the year or in different buildings in the university, for example, would be able to threaten the university with the loss of funding unless the university agreed to specially accommodate them. Even the government purports to disown this reading of the statute, but it is the logical implication of the government's current position.

If our equal-treatment reading of the statute is right, then the constitutional questions raised in FAIR v. Rumsfeld disappear. The Solomon Amendment would not authorize the government to strip funding from universities whose law schools apply the same equal-opportunity policies to the military that they apply to every other potential employer. Law schools like Columbia, where we teach, tried to comply with the Solomon Amendment by giving military interviewers access to university facilities, but not to their on-campus employment recruiting programs. The universities weren't treating the military differently. They were treating the military the same way they would any other employer that refuses to hire gay people. In fact, many universities no doubt treated the military better than they would have treated another discriminating employer—anyone else would likely have been refused the services of the career-development office.

The whole article can be found at http://www.slate.com/id/2131465/

[opihimoimoi]

9. The message is simple::: Muscle NOT Brains is what Bush wants...

For this society. Apparently, Higher Ed did not help Bush intellectually...still a troglodyte...he poses as John Wayne but is seen by too many as Pee Wee Herman.