NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This story illustrates one of those times when I am deeply conflicted over competing objectives. On one hand, I would love to see discrimination against gays and lesbians cease. On the other hand, I believe that the US military should have the same access to students as other recruiters. I don't envy the Justices on this one at all.


Supreme Court Weighs
Military's Access to Law Schools (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/politics/07scotus.html?ei=5094&en=ee61c9dcedb60452&hp=&ex=1134018000&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1133962332-9JrcQmgd0maVarNERe53rw)


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: December 7, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 - The military wants access to law schools on the same basis as other potential employers seeking to recruit students, although openly gay law students, of course, need not apply. The law schools insist that only those employers who pledge not to discriminate, against gay men and lesbians or anyone else, are welcome.

For more than 10 years, the two sides have circled one another as Congress pulled the noose ever tighter in the form of a threatened withholding of federal money from noncompliant universities. A showdown in the Supreme Court appeared inevitable, and on Tuesday it finally took place.

The result was a lopsided argument during which the justices appeared strongly inclined to uphold a federal law known as the Solomon Amendment, which withholds federal grants from universities that do not open their doors to military recruiters "in a manner at least equal in quality and scope" to the access offered civilian recruiters.

Or as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it succinctly: "It says that if you want our money, you have to let our recruiters on campus."

The constitutional question was one of free speech and association. The federal appeals court in Philadelphia, ruling last year in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of some three dozen law schools, barred enforcement of the Solomon Amendment on the ground that it forced the schools to "propagate, accommodate and subsidize the military's expressive message" of disapproval of homosexuality despite the law schools' commitment to equal rights for their gay students.

Since 1991, the American Association of Law Schools, which includes 166 of the 188 accredited law schools, has required its member schools to insist that prospective employers agree to a policy of nondiscrimination on grounds that include sexual orientation. As law schools began to bar military recruiters, Congress responded with a series of amendments to military spending bills. While the measures were addressed to universities, and not specifically to law schools, it was the law schools that were the source of resistance.

At first, Congress provided only that Defense Department grants would be withheld. Eventually, it added a long list of federal agencies and made clear that a denial of access by any part of a university would jeopardize federal grants to the entire university. At this point, with the stakes so high, law schools began to give in, many complying grudgingly by relegating military recruiters to off-campus locations. Congress responded last year by adding the provision that requires not only access, but equal access.

In the argument on Tuesday, the law school coalition's lawyer, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, had difficulty gaining traction as he urged the justices to uphold the appeals court's judgment that the Solomon Amendment amounted to "compelled speech" by forcing the law schools to convey the military's message. Chief Justice Roberts made his disagreement unmistakable.

"I'm sorry, but on 'compelled speech,' nobody thinks that this law school is speaking through those employers who come onto its campus for recruitment," the chief justice said. "Nobody thinks the law school believes everything that the employers are doing or saying."

The lawyer adjusted his focus. The law schools have their own message, "that they believe it is immoral to abet discrimination," he said.

This time, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor took issue. "But they can say that to every student who enters the room," she said.

"And when they do it, your honor, the answer of the students is, we don't believe you," Mr. Rosenkranz said.

"The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money," Chief Justice Roberts interjected. "What you're saying is this is a message we believe in strongly, but we don't believe in it to the detriment of $100 million."

Earlier, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement had assured the justices that the Solomon Amendment permitted law schools to be clear, even outspoken, in their disagreement with the military's policy.

[ This story is two pages long. To read the rest of the story, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/politics/07scotus.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=ee61c9dcedb60452&hp&ex=1134018000&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1133962332-9JrcQmgd0maVarNERe53rw). ]

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive views... Basically the law schools seem to be saying that the homophobes can only have equal access to law graduates when homosexuals can have equal access to the military. If the army drops its prejudices then everyone's happy.

I don't see how they're mutually exclusive views... Basically the law schools seem to be saying that the homophobes can only have equal access to law graduates when homosexuals can have equal access to the military. If the army drops its prejudices then everyone's happy.
Major, major "IF!" Unless the politicians get their heads out of their collective ass, the liklihood of that happening approaches zero as a limit. :(

Yeah conflicted is definatly the word for this.

I don't see why non-violent homophobes should be punished for the way they feel about people.

Homosexuals in the military.....boy is that a tough issue these days. Could it be that the gov't fears that straight males/female could be raped by a gay male/female during combat or training?

Etrusca, I feel exactly the same as you on this. The politicians and idiots, some military and some civilian, have been fucking things up for years. The only hope is for major legislation by Congress. I doubt the military will reform of its own right, because militaries rarely do so.

A military that is unreformed will continue to be reformed unless acted upon by an outside force.

Homosexuals in the military.....boy is that a tough issue these days. Could it be that the gov't fears that straight males/female could be raped by a gay male/female during combat or training?

It's not a tough issue at all. The US is quite solitary in its ban on gays in the military in the developed world. There really is no reason to uphold the ban, other countries' experiences with gays in the military regarded - especially seeing as there are gay, British servicemen serving alongside US servicemen in Iraq, not to mention international gay servicemen serving alongside them in Afghanistan.

The US ban on gay people in the military makes no sense. Whatsoever.

It's not a tough issue at all. The US is quite solitary in its ban on gays in the military in the developed world. There really is no reason to uphold the ban, other countries' experiences with gays in the military regarded - especially seeing as there are gay, British servicemen serving alongside US servicemen in Iraq, not to mention international gay servicemen serving alongside them in Afghanistan.

The US ban on gay people in the military makes no sense. Whatsoever.
I know! I know! Why do you think I'm so conflicted over this? :p

Yeah conflicted is definatly the word for this.

I don't see why non-violent homophobes should be punished for the way they feel about people.

Homosexuals in the military.....boy is that a tough issue these days. Could it be that the gov't fears that straight males/female could be raped by a gay male/female during combat or training?
I suspect it has more to do with the extreme reluctance of a sizable proportion of the American public to accept gays as being "real people," than it does with anything else. Sigh. :(

I know! I know! Why do you think I'm so conflicted over this? :p

Was I talking to you?

(;) )

I think that witholding military grants from universities in principle is perfectly fine. I also beleive that the universities and law school are right to challenge it on the basis of the military discrimination against gay people.

What my question would be is, If this were any other employer, would they not be sued for discrimination against the person looking for a job?

If so what is it that protects the US military from such cases? Additionally, what IS the actual basis for this open and flagrant discrimination? If it's purely homopobic, should it not fall under discrimination laws? And if it is tied into a religious bias should it not then be challenged under the seperation of state and religion?

At first I've said this is a no brainer, but Etrusca's right it is pretty conflicted.

yeah, I also don't like that the military is discrimatory, but don't know how I feel about banning them from campus.

I've thought about this before considering that my campus is one of the schools involved in the suit. I think it is, or at least they were talking about joining in.

Since moving to Philadelphia I've felt like we are always in the center of the news somehow. Hardly anything that happened in Ohio ever made national news.

COMMENTARY: This story illustrates one of those times when I am deeply conflicted over competing objectives. On one hand, I would love to see discrimination against gays and lesbians cease. On the other hand, I believe that the US military should have the same access to students as other recruiters. I don't envy the Justices on this one at all.


The military actually has BETTER 'access to students' than other employers.

Many of the law schools allow NO access at all, to organisations that discriminate on the basis of gender orientation.

Was I talking to you?

(;) )
Well, TOUCH you! [ walks away! ] :p

The military actually has BETTER 'access to students' than other employers.

Many of the law schools allow NO access at all, to organisations that discriminate on the basis of gender orientation.
Um ... you did actually, like ... READ the frakkin' article, yes??? :rolleyes:

The thing is, the military actually has an excellent model for how to handle gays in the military, if only the brass and the politicians would admit it. There have been women in the US military for decades, and the military has policies for how to handle relationships between male and female personnel. The military could simply set the same policies for homosexual relationships that is uses for heterosexual relationships - no relationships between superiors and direct subordinates, no relationships between officers and enlisted, and so on. It doesn't matter if the parties involved are the opposite gender or the same gender - a sexual relationship that is damaging to discipline or morale should be treated the same whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. And a sexual relationship that is not damaging to discipline or morale should not be the military's business, period.

Too bad Clinton lacked a spine - he had promised to settle this once and for all, but he caved under political pressure.

:rolleyes:

The thing is, the military actually has an excellent model for how to handle gays in the military, if only the brass and the politicians would admit it. There have been women in the US military for decades, and the military has policies for how to handle relationships between male and female personnel. The military could simply set the same policies for homosexual relationships that is uses for heterosexual relationships - no relationships between superiors and direct subordinates, no relationships between officers and enlisted, and so on. It doesn't matter if the parties involved are the opposite gender or the same gender - a sexual relationship that is damaging to discipline or morale should be treated the same whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. And a sexual relationship that is not damaging to discipline or morale should not be the military's business, period.
That'll work. It'll never be implemented, but it would work. :(

The US ban on gay people in the military makes no sense. Whatsoever.

well you see, the thought of gay people makes certain segments of the american population get a funny feeling. in the pants region. and this confuses and frighten them, so they call for backup before being overcome by their curiousity and desire to make out with people of the same sex as themselves.

well you see, the thought of gay people makes certain segments of the american population get a funny feeling. in the pants region. and this confuses and frighten them, so they call for backup before being overcome by their curiousity and desire to make out with people of the same sex as themselves.
Sigh. That's not helpful. :rolleyes:

Well, TOUCH you! [ walks away! ] :p

Ooh, limp wrist and all? Why, do!

Ooh, limp wrist and all? Why, do!
Oh, GROAN! Somehow I just KNEW you would turn that one against me! :rolleyes:

Turning into another sex thread, eh?

Yet more evidence for my thesis.

Oh, GROAN! Somehow I just KNEW you would turn that one against me! :rolleyes:

Oh, the things I'd turn against you...

Turning into another sex thread, eh?

Yet more evidence for my thesis.
:mp5:

:mp5:

That hurts me deep.

Um ... you did actually, like ... READ the frakkin' article, yes??? :rolleyes:

Indeed... my point was that... if, say... Mastercard decided not to recruit homosexuals... they would be refused access... and would have no recourse... which would be only fair, I think.

The military apparently is going to be able to revoke federal support... which is putting them in an unfairly strong position... certainly a 'better access to students' than anyone else gets... no?

Well this is very complex, if they all of a sudden start allowing homosexuals, when even the American Public doesn't really accept them, I can already see, Homosexual soldier killed by fellow troops bla bla bla.
Also the US military is in no way comparable with the European ones, in the US army there are many Christian fanatics so to say, many Generals saying the war on Iraq is the fight between good and evil, etc. etc .etc.
Also I can't find the link right now, but in the mid 80s one Navy personell, admitted to being gay. Same night, surrounded by 20 men, pulled to the bathrooms and face pushed into the refuse the whole night, under the pretense 'You fags like ass so much, the shit should be familiar to you' , and other jeers and taunts.
Well I can see the day coming when America, once it found a cure to homosexuality (inevitable as medicine progresses) , it will be mandatory, unless there is a complete change in soceity first.

Oh, the things I'd turn against you...
ROFLMAO! Fass ... are you flirting with me??? :eek:

ROFLMAO! Fass ... are you flirting with me??? :eek:

Ewwww...

Indeed... my point was that... if, say... Mastercard decided not to recruit homosexuals... they would be refused access... and would have no recourse... which would be only fair, I think.

The military apparently is going to be able to revoke federal support... which is putting them in an unfairly strong position... certainly a 'better access to students' than anyone else gets... no?
No. The military didn't make the policy. The politicians did. :p

Of course, ther is nothing stopping OTHER federal agencies recruiting on Campus right? All of those agencies who do not have discriminatory practices?

I mean, go ahead and count them!

http://www.lib.lsu.edu/gov/alpha


I mean, is the whole intent of federal subsidy of education there to promote the education of future soldiers? Or is it supposed to be to the benefit of the country to have an educated workforce in general?

Seems to me that people are either of a mindset to join the military or they aren't. And if they are then they will seek it out.

Personally, I'd love to see EVERY college and university make the stand all at once. It would force the government to either change the rules or to let the post-secondary education system in the country collapse.

Personally, I'd love to see EVERY college and university make the stand all at once. It would force the government to either change the rules or to let the post-secondary education system in the country collapse.
Personally, I think you've lost your frakkin' MIND! :p

ROFLMAO! Fass ... are you flirting with me??? :eek:

No. I'm coming on to you.

No. I'm coming on to you.
Well, gee, Fass. I'm flattered and all, but you know I'm strictly hetero, yes? :p

Personally, I'd love to see EVERY college and university make the stand all at once. It would force the government to either change the rules or to let the post-secondary education system in the country collapse.


Personally I can see the point he's going for although it seems somewhat overstated than I would interpret it.

Many of the comments here have been why should the Military discriminate at all? My simple answer has to be either homophobia or an inability to write it into policy, and because we all know they're able it's simple homophobia. On this note they are right because such an ammendment to legislation may see thousands of gay people enlisting or looking for officer training.

We have to admit that Gay people DO enter the military and don't disclose their actual sexuality for personal or social reasons. To me the idea that this should preclude military service. My housemate who is gay has considered military service and he'd make one DAMN FINE officer.

Why should which way you take it determine what's an option for you and what is not?

At the end of the day it's like persecuting people for being left handed it's just wrong.

Well, you will also note that I did not say WHAT policy needed to be revisited. It could be the gays in the military issue, or - more easilly - it could simply be the issue of tying education funding to military recruiting.


I mean, how did someone think to make that explicit connection?

"We the government have a mandate to help our citizens achieve their potential by ensuring that we can provide the most excellent education possible to them. So we will - to the betterment of all Americans and the American economy. It will foster research and innovation, ensure that talented people gain the skills required to succeed, and keep our economic engine the innovative powerhouse that the current world market demands


...



Oh yeah - and we need soldiers."

And your point? :confused:

Well, gee, Fass. I'm flattered and all, but you know I'm strictly hetero, yes? :p

You know that testing strength of conviction is a hobby of mine, yes?

You know that testing strength of conviction is a hobby of mine, yes?
ROFLMFAO!!! Well, DUH! It's one of your most stirling characteristics! :D

*openning post, snipped for length*
For me, it's a pretty simple matter. Many (if not most) schools have non-discrimination policies that prohibit on-campus recruiting by employers that hold discriminitory hiring policies. If an employer won't hire blacks, or women, or Jews, then they can take a hike right off the campus. I think this is a great way to encourage employers to toss out bigotted hiring policies.

The US military clings to bigotry. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is so blatantly unAmerican that it makes me sick, and I say this as a person who's best childhood friend only recently returned from a tour in Iraq. I support the women and men who choose to put their lives on the line in our military, but I believe that we do them all a grave injustice by allowing bigotry to flourish within our Armed Services.

If the US military wants to recruit on campuses, then it's pretty simple: quit discriminating against gays and lesbians. I applaud the schools that are willing to stand up for the American values of equality and justice. The military should not be allowed special treatment or given an opportunity to spread discrimination disguised as "patriotism." The military should instead be forced to decide if hating on the gays is important enough to out-weigh their recruiting goals.

ROFLMFAO!!! Well, DUH! It's one of your most stirling characteristics! :D

The most stirring (I assume) to be revealed to you eventually, of course.

I think the universities are perfectly right to deny access to the military based on their discriminatory policies. No other company would be allowed access to the students with the policies that the military has; why should they be any different?

For me, it's a pretty simple matter. Many (if not most) schools have non-discrimination policies that prohibit on-campus recruiting by employers that hold discriminitory hiring policies. If an employer won't hire blacks, or women, or Jews, then they can take a hike right off the campus. I think this is a great way to encourage employers to toss out bigotted hiring policies.

The US military clings to bigotry. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy is so blatantly unAmerican that it makes me sick, and I say this as a person who's best childhood friend only recently returned from a tour in Iraq. I support the women and men who choose to put their lives on the line in our military, but I believe that we do them all a grave injustice by allowing bigotry to flourish within our Armed Services.

If the US military wants to recruit on campuses, then it's pretty simple: quit discriminating against gays and lesbians. I applaud the schools that are willing to stand up for the American values of equality and justice. The military should not be allowed special treatment or given an opportunity to spread discrimination disguised as "patriotism." The military should instead be forced to decide if hating on the gays is important enough to out-weigh their recruiting goals.
Gawd frakkin' day-um-it! Tell that to your frakking politicians! The military is only doing what it has been told to do! :headbang:

The most stirring (I assume) to be revealed to you eventually, of course.
Dream on, Fass. You should BE so lucky! :D

The US ban on gay people in the military makes no sense. Whatsoever.

Having gay people in the military would purportedly "undermine morale, diminish combat effectiveness, etc." I have no idea if it would, but those are the arguments I usually here. I personally have no opinion, though.

I think the universities are perfectly right to deny access to the military based on their discriminatory policies. No other company would be allowed access to the students with the policies that the military has; why should they be any different?

To be devil's advocate: No other company would be restrained from giving funds to the university after being barred.

You see, government institutions aren't like other companies. They have other expectations and rules to follow, and one being perhaps not to financially punish those who engage in freedom of speech/opinion and association, which may be the case in this matter.

Dream on, Fass. You should BE so lucky! :D

Oh, I assure you, the loss is primarily felt by you.

To be devil's advocate: No other company would be restrained from giving funds to the university after being barred.

You see, government institutions aren't like other companies. They have other expectations and rules to follow, and one being perhaps not to financially punish those who engage in freedom of speech/opinion and association, which may be the case in this matter.

Then the DoD can stop contributing funds to the university if they do not allow recruiters on campus. But why should the university stop receiving other funds from the government; funds that have nothing to do with the military? If a school bans recruiters from Nokia; they won't suddenly prevent eBay from contributing to the school.

Then the DoD can stop contributing funds to the university if they do not allow recruiters on campus. But why should the university stop receiving other funds from the government; funds that have nothing to do with the military? If a school bans recruiters from Nokia; they won't suddenly prevent eBay from contributing to the school.

This of course already being covered by "and one being perhaps not to financially punish those who engage in freedom of speech/opinion and association, which may be the case in this matter."

I'm not opposing you here. I'm just pointing out that the "a company like any other" argument is flawed in its support of your stance, because then they would be allowed to do this.

The thing is, the military actually has an excellent model for how to handle gays in the military, if only the brass and the politicians would admit it. There have been women in the US military for decades, and the military has policies for how to handle relationships between male and female personnel. The military could simply set the same policies for homosexual relationships that is uses for heterosexual relationships - no relationships between superiors and direct subordinates, no relationships between officers and enlisted, and so on. It doesn't matter if the parties involved are the opposite gender or the same gender - a sexual relationship that is damaging to discipline or morale should be treated the same whether it is a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. And a sexual relationship that is not damaging to discipline or morale should not be the military's business, period.

Too bad Clinton lacked a spine - he had promised to settle this once and for all, but he caved under political pressure.

:rolleyes:

He did worse than cave. He passed the DOMA. He violated the Constitution in order to appease the anti-gay movement.

Gawd frakkin' day-um-it! Tell that to your frakking politicians! The military is only doing what it has been told to do! :headbang:
"We were only taking orders."

Where have I heard that before...?

He did worse than cave. He passed the DOMA. He violated the Constitution in order to appease the anti-gay movement.
Indeed. That alone was almost enough to make me start hating Clinton. Only the saxophone solos saved him.

This of course already being covered by "and one being perhaps not to financially punish those who engage in freedom of speech/opinion and association, which may be the case in this matter."

I'm not opposing you here. I'm just pointing out that the "a company like any other" argument is flawed in its support of your stance, because then they would be allowed to do this.

They have been allowed to do this, though, without much of a fight. It's when the government threatened to withdraw non-military related funds that the universities started challenging things. That's really no different than if any other company withdrew funding because of being banned. At that point the universities could choose to make a stand for their beliefs or sacrifice them for more money. It's only when the company in question has the power to withdraw funding from almost entirely different entities that the universities cry foul.

Put it this way. If a company like General Motors was banned from recruiting for having discriminatory business practices, they could threaten to withdraw their own funding, but they could not threaten to withdraw funding from Toyota, who does not have such policies. But if the DoD is banned from recruiting for having discriminatory business practices, not only can they withdraw their own funding, which they ought to be able to do, but as it stands, they can withdraw funding from the CIA, FBI, ATF, etc., all of whom do not have such discriminatory practices.

Gawd frakkin' day-um-it! Tell that to your frakking politicians! The military is only doing what it has been told to do! :headbang:

You can say the same thing about any recruiters that come on campus. They aren't the decision-makers. But because they are a part of the organization they are treated as the organization is treated. The military is a part of the US Government. A recruiter is held responsible for the decisions of the people in charge in terms of recruiting because this is the only way to deal with these organizations.

More importantly, the laws say that the military must get equal access. They aren't agreeing to equal access. They want preferred access. All things being equal if this were Nokia and they descriminated against gays, they would have to change their policies or they would not be allowed on campus. The military is being treated EXACTLY like Nokia. This is equal access.

The part that amazes me about the practices is how is this permitted in a society that bans descrimination. How can we pretend to treat people equally and ban people based on sexuality which has NO bearing on their abilities to perform the job? Why would this be any more acceptable than banning certain sexualities from police forces, from the FBI, from the fire department, from any other entity? The policy is flabbergasting and the fact that it continues in the 21rst century is a sad statement about the power of American hatred.

And, Eut, shut up with all your far right crap about allowing gays in the military. I'm tired of all you conservatives fighting to lift the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allowing gays the freedom to be themselves. This is just more evidence of how anti-liberal you are and how you clearly CANNOT be considered a centrist /sarcasm

To be devil's advocate: No other company would be restrained from giving funds to the university after being barred.

You see, government institutions aren't like other companies. They have other expectations and rules to follow, and one being perhaps not to financially punish those who engage in freedom of speech/opinion and association, which may be the case in this matter.

To be the Devil's Avocado... the military isn't withholding the funds... they are somehow being allowed to regulate the flow of ALL 'federal funding', not just military-based contributions.

Effectively, the government is pandering to the Military Anti-Gay Agenda... and that would not be allowed for any other company.

Here's the downside of finding for the universities, however--it could basically allow universities to discriminate against any company or group simply because they disagree with their stances. For instance, Bob Jones University could tell Wells Fargo that they can't recruit because they support gay rights groups.

The solution seemed to be reached in the latter part of the article--the key is to allow more speech. Let the military recruiters in, and allow student groups or faculty to protest their presence in the same area.

Here's the downside of finding for the universities, however--it could basically allow universities to discriminate against any company or group simply because they disagree with their stances. For instance, Bob Jones University could tell Wells Fargo that they can't recruit because they support gay rights groups.

The solution seemed to be reached in the latter part of the article--the key is to allow more speech. Let the military recruiters in, and allow student groups or faculty to protest their presence in the same area.

On the other hand... what the Military is doing is unconstitutional... whereas, Wells Fargo have breached no constitutional clauses in their dispersion of support.

If the court is CLEAR about the fact that it finds in favour of the schools BECAUSE of the unconstitutional posture of the military, it SHOULD be possible to avoid the kind of issues you suggest.

(On the other hand, of course, being banned from recruiting from BJU, sounds kind of like being banned from swordfighting blindfolded....)

Having gay people in the military would purportedly "undermine morale, diminish combat effectiveness, etc." I have no idea if it would, but those are the arguments I usually here. I personally have no opinion, though.

that is very hilarious, and my favourite part. reading through the thread, i have wondered how much time it will need to come up, and anticipated to post a comment.

*takes a deep breath*

you do realize that the US army lifted the ban on homosexuals in their ranks during wartimes (reacting to the increasing demand for potential soldiers)?

so basically, in times where efficiency and performance were needed the most, the people who were condemned as "diminishing combat effectiveness" were let in. gotta love it how they render their own argument ad absurdum.

(don't believe me? well, just think..do you really think saying you were gay might have helped you during he vietnam draft, e.g.?) [oh i'd die laughing if somebody went "that's why we lost vietnam! 'cause all the fags were drafted!]