Academia VS. US Military
Monday, March 6, 2006 at 11:35AM 
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today 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. The "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. Thirty-six law schools together sued to challenge the equal- access policy, saying the schools have campus policies of not assisting employers who discriminate based on race, sex or sexual orientation.
Sidebar: But is the policy discriminatory? The fact is that the military cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and recruiters cannot inquire into a potential recruitee’s sexual orientation. Case in point: take these 7 Fort Bragg paratroopers who are being discharged from the Army, not for being homosexual, but for engaging in behavior unbecoming a US soldier; that is, engaging in sex on a pornographic gay web site. The same outcome would result in a heterosexual case.
Back to the story.
The Supreme Court 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 decision for the court:
"Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military’s message; nothing about the statute affects the composition of the group by making group membership less desirable. The Solomon Amendment therefore does not violate a law school’s First Amendment rights. A military recruiter’s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school’s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter’s message."
The dispute centered on the Solomon Amendment, first enacted by Congress in 1994 to pressure universities into allowing military recruiters on campus. The Bush administration gave the law renewed emphasis after the 2001 terrorist attacks, insisting that military representatives get the same treatment as other recruiters. Congress later wrote that equal-access requirement into law.
Roberts said the schools "attempted to stretch a number of First Amendment doctrines well beyond the sort of activities these doctrines protect.”
The federal government provides almost $35 billion a year to universities through research grants, government contracts and other sources. The financial stake is one reason almost every law school has agreed to give equal access to the military.
The truth behind the lawsuit, as Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion, is that academia increasingly finds the military repugnant. While taking aid and grants in the form of money from the federal government, many of these "schools of higher learning" loathe the military despite the obvious paradox in that the freedom to speak and be heard is safeguarded not by university professors, but by the AMERICAN SOLDIER. It looks like academia, Cindy Sheehan and the Leave My Child Alone campaign are on the wrong side of the issue again.
References: Chief Justice’s opinion Supreme Court’s Syllabus Oral Argument
Stop the ACLU Michelle Malkin Sister Toldjah Conservative Princess Flopping Aces Wizbang
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/404326
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (64)
But everyone (including me) was always confused on how the military actually applies its discrimination policy. So I hope you don't mind me asking Amy, but if the army's policy is "don't ask, don't tell," would a homosexual have to tell his superior officer that they were gay in order to be discriminated against? Or can a man be discriminated against for being effeminate? Or for having a same-sex partner they live with?
P.S.
I disagree strongly with the court that allowing recruitment on their campus isn't a form of speech. But I can see why they came to that conclusion, because to limit the military in this way would really be harmful to our county.
Solicitation of one's sexual orientation is not allowed.
Homosexual acts are illegal.
Homosexual conduct is disruptive of military cohesion.
Soldiers who commit homosexual acts will be separated from the Army.
The policy pre-Clinton was no homosexuals in the miltary at all. This position was strongly endorsed by top Pentagon leaders including then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell.
Not one institution of learning would even exist were it not for the military.
Don't like it? Too bad.
The upshot is that Massachussetts could pass a law forbidding discrimination against employers on the basis of sexual orientation, and it would be constitutional. Christian schools would be forced to host gay orgs, since hosting isn't speech.
For an ostensible conservative, it certainly was a sweeping decision.
There is something odd - if not downright frightening - about one group (taxpayer-paid university administrators and professors) saying the only way it can exercise its free speech is to impede the free speech of others (military recruiters). Shades of George Orwell's "Freedom is slavery"!
Call it fascism, which is what it really is. But don't call it free speech.
It's also important to be clear about what is meant by "recruiting." It's not just that they didn't want to allow the military on campus (although by and large they didn't), it's that they don't want to perform the administrative functions to support military recruitment on campus. Eg sending out emails notifying students of recruitments, putting up flyers, etc. Part of the idea here is that they felt that sending out these emails was coerced speech, like a school making students say the pledge of allegiance. But Roberts ruled that this was not coerced speech, it was just administrative-support-as-usual. Insofar as this, it's an unfair characterization to say the universities wanted to impede the free speech of the military -- they just didn't want to help them out.
Personally, I don't much like the idea of the government saying, "Hey, you're a private university, but since we give you some money we're going to tell you what you have to do," because that's the last thing you need at an institution of higher learning. Now, I would guess that most people around here don't think federal money should go to private universities (and I would agree). But if these places were not publicly funded would you be okay with them barring the military?
Famous last words of a dying civilization.
You people are the heirs of the hippies. And where are they now?
Morover, the point that you made about administrative functions seems, well, beside the point. Do campus environmental, womens's, homosexual, and Democratic organizations need no administrative overhead? I know of several universities where, if a vote were take of the student body, these groups might not be allowed on campus. Can the administrative overhead argument be used to bar these groups?
If we want to allow Yale or Harvard to deny military recruiters on campus, can Bob Jones University then re-institute its policies concerning interracial dating? Can VMI (a state institution) go back to being all-male? It seemed to me that the argument the professors used in the suit smacks of a "free speech for me but not for thee" mindset - fascism, in other words.
For the record, I find the Bob Jones interracial dating policies repugnant (my wife is black and I am white) as well as Harvard and Yale's anti-military recruiting position. Much as I dislike both I don't see how one can be allowed and not the other. This is the problem the professors in the lawsuit avoided.
Your point about private universities paying their professors with private funds was well taken, however.
But it is the behavior of a soldier that causes him to be "discriminated against", er, be discharged. It's the same for hetero soldiers. Adultery is a voilation of military conduct. There are lots of qualifications for being booted out of the military.
I rather like the irony though, the same people that are crying about this were the same ones who cheered the loudest when the Bob Jones decision was handed down. Hey, this was the way you wanted the law applied. Live with it.
I should point out that the government research grants aren't charity, and that work is done in return for it. You talk like the fed government is buying influence, where in fact they're just buying research. If a private company supplies the govt I don't think the feds should have a special influence outside normal law-making. eg. Bob Jones' inter-racial business should have been illegal in general.
If it comes to establishing freedom, imo freedom is impossible without universities.
Many people who are pro-military have talked on this board about how bad academia is, and yet the military, clearly, needs/wants what academia has to give. Is it too much to ask them to play by acadamia's rules when they acadamia's turf?
Jez, the difference is that a cornershop is not a public university that receives BILLIONS of dollars a year from the FEDERAL government. Public libraries receive mostly local and state funding with the exception of some federal help, which libraries must compete for, and they're usually for special projects.
Public colleges and universities make money hand over fist... there are gay and lesbian groups, communist groups, anti-American groups on these campuses... why NOT recruiters? No one gets accosted. It is voluntary. No one is forced to meet with a recruiter.
I find it more offensive to have a car drive up beside me with blaring rap "Mutha F***er B*****" . THAT is being accosted.
What the hell ever happened to patriotism? You know, "Wow, serving my country... maybe that should be an option!" Not to mention that the military offers a lot of assistance to students who enlist. What would the harm of having a recruiter at a job fair?
Bob Jones? Give me a break! How about Yale Law school welcoming in March 2001 (just before 9/11) Rahmatullah Hashemi, a representative of the TALIBAN to "sing the praises" of his leaders? Now, after 9/11, Yale has given this Taliban guy preferential treatment, putting him at the head of the line over other applicants so he could be accepted to Yale? Yale wanted to snatch him up Quote, "before Harvard got him."
All this on Federal funds! Academia is going donw the tubes fast, not only ideologically, but practically, getting in bed with our enemies. But BAD MILITARY! I hope the next 9/11 is on Yale and Harvard. And the U of Colorado.
Sounds to me like universities need a good dose of patriotism.
Well, first, campus women, GLBT, etc organizations DON'T need administrative overhead because it's the students who run them and send out emails and put up fliers. PLUS many school do not have sanctioned GLBT clubs and things of that nature. Private colleges and universities can only be pressured into allowing them by the students who attend.
About Bob Jones: Do I want laws saying "your private institution can't do what it wants?" No. I want Bob Jones to be able to institute an anti-interracial dating policy. TO BE ABLE TO. But like you say, it is repugnant to me to actually do so. Similarly, I don't feel private companies should be forced to be equal opportunity employers. But I know that without those rules there would be discrimination. (However, I don't think VMI should be all male because it's a state institution. Private, go for it; state, not so much.)
But the comparison here isn't to student clubs and interracial dating; it's to other non-equal opportunity employers, which these campuses would never help with recruitment. Honestly, I think the military should recruit at these campuses, because if they couldn't the composition of the military would be altered for the worse (the army needs lawyers too). But I also don't like the idea of pushing around private schools. In fact I think this is a tougher issue than most of you seem to: the military should be recruiting, but grant money shouldn't come with strings attached. That's a recipe for bad scholarship.
"Not one institution of learning would even exist were it not for the military.
Don't like it? Too bad."
No one in the Military would be educated if it were not for academia. Don't like it...
What better way to civilise him? With fond feelings towards America, he is one less loose cannon. Even if he is being supported federrally, it could still work out cheaper than hunting and killing him.
Universities compete for grants too, of course. I wish I could find these supplies of free money that you complain about!
"Not to mention that the military offers a lot of assistance to students who enlist."
I know, and I found it rather sinister to be honest...
CRZ: no-one who is ignorant is free. Universities, either directly or through trickle-down, are absolutely necessary to save people from ignorance. They also make it harder to mislead through propaganda.
The universities accept tons of federal money but refuse the parts of the federal government they are displeased with, i.e, the military, which is a federal agency (Dept. of Defense). Yet, these universities will support international terrorism through their admittance program and lectures. I think the US should cut off funding altogether to such institutions.
Acadamia is becoming the Paris Hilton of education: spoiled and slutty, earning no rights, having it given to her, yet demanding rights to do whatever the hell she wants. It's about time universities started acting like grown ups and a little less like liberal whores.
You are horribly ill-informed about universities liberating people from ignorance, Jez. They are doing the opposite. They by and large are liberal bastions of lewdness and liberal PROPAGANDA. I can give you a list of situations to prove this (and I will later when I have time).
I have to agree that universities are being ruined (I work in one a lot of the time), but not for the reasons that I expect you would posit. Nevertheless there need to be universities (of sufficient quality) for a democracy to be any more than a pantomime or sham. We may already be beneath the threshold.
I would say that the notion of a learned institution has more than earned its keep. I hope we're not arguing about the necessity of universities in general.
I would imagine that any institution in the business of promoting terrorism etc. would have damaged the independence of its research and would loose out on grant money in any case. Surely supporting terrorism is illegal in any case and can be dealt with without any new ideas about withdrawing funding. Are there specific examples you can think of?
To say that higher education institutions caused the American Revolution is incorrect. Just the opposite, I would suggest. Some of these institutions would promote communism and there are several "professors" in the news lately who expouse just that. Shameful.
To convince people about your claim that academia propagates liberal values (without merit), you'd have to prove that academia somehow forcefully prevents conservatives from becoming "academics" and from publishing their works under the academic spectrum.
The United States, particularly at a TIME OF WAR (whether you agree with the war or not) has a right and some would say an obligation to recruit for the military. Universities have a problem with allowing (and thats' all we're talking about: ALLOWING, not promoting) the United States Military from promoting the military as a vocation to students, coincidentally, SEEKING A VOCATION because as Justice Roberts noted, they find the military repugnant. However, these same universities don't have a problem fascilitating gay and lesbian groups, out and out anti-American groups (like communist groups and so on), anti-war/American movements, debauchery associated with fraternities, the ACLU... but they have a problem with religion and the military????
Your friend who invented the LED worked directly on semiconductor research which at its birth did not look as if it would have commercial prospects. Perhaps universities are the only place where that kind of technology can be born. Their results are open and published. Certainly a commercial research department would patent and hide their achievements.
Amy: You missed my point: I'm not comparing defence with paperclips, I'm comparing universities with supplying paperclips.
Religious societies exist in universities on exactly the same basis as lesbian/gay or socialist societies. Also military enthusiasts can set up a society if they wish. No problems at all.
I dare say a portion of staff at any university will find the military repugnant, but that's not official policy anywhere. Academics are basically professional arguers, they won't all agree about anything!
Did you know that the Army (and all military branches) also trains soldiers to be Arabic translators? So... yet another good reason for recruiters to be allowed on campus.
I wrote this in the main article:
"The Supreme Court 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."
The reality is that the military is discriminated against on campuses, not the other way around. What freedom of speech does a soldier have at Yale and Harvard if they aren't even allowed on campus? What freedom of speech do the gay and lesbian groups have on campus? As much as they want.
Double standard anti-American garbage!
The military is treated in the same way that any other discriminatory recruitment body would be treated.
The real question here is why a gay soldier is any more disruptive than a female soldier. I can't imagine an unmarried soldier being dismissed for getting jiggy with a woman.
Colleges and universities also claim no discrimination based on creed, religion or politics, but we all know that is not true. Google on Pappy Boyington and the U of Washington. They sure practiced discrimination because Pappy killed people in WW2 and was a US Marine.
(1)
All homosexuals are dicriminated agaisnt, regardless of how they behave.
(2)
The University of Washington should lighten up and go ahead and give the honor to Pappy. But I do understand how the students feel. Right now we are having a horrible war shoved down our throats, and that makes any war fuzzy feelings people have for the military shrivel up.
(3)
You are lying about students not being able to enlist. I know people who enlisted, including my husband who worked in the JAG during law school. I don't know if his school was involved in this suit, but it's one of the most liberal in the country, so it probably was.
anti-war -- is there a shortage of weapons technology recruitment?
anti-capitalist -- is there a shortage of banking recruitment?
anti-American -- what does this even mean?? Does it mean someone who doesn't agree with you? Would you say that I am anti-American?
How exactly are students being prevented from enlisting?
As for boyington, the decision to erect a memorial for someone is not even close to recruitment. What makes you think they're the same thing? And, to put my point of view on the table, there is something macarbre about celebrating the number of enemy shot down. Should we celebrate Paul Tibbets for killing the most people with a single bomb? I'm thankful to boyington, but his sacrifice was, unbelievably sadly, unexceptional. The reason for singling him out for a memorial is a bit distasteful.
Did you know that the largest number of scholarships connected to the University of Notre Dame are from ROTC? Also, the Naval ROTC program at ND for the last 15 years has commissioned more officers into the navy than any other institution save the Naval Academy. I am not sure about the other branches of ROTC, but I am sure their statistics are right behind the other academies as far as commissioning goes. So, what do you think it is about "serving one's country" and this Catholic university? I can't believe that ALL young adults are applying for scholarships because they can't afford school, the trade-off today is just to large. Besides ND has a policy that once accepted they will help you figure out a way to pay for school. (don't ask me how) So what is it? Conservative ideals, tradition??
The REAL answer is that the majority of heterosexual men don't want them there. Ugly as it may sound, that is the way it is. We are military and I have asked MANY men this question and by far and large the answer is that it just wouldn't work. I don't know what your experience is, but I generally find women to be LESS "homophobic", for lack of better term, then men. And let's face it, women still aren't allowed in some of the combat jobs where men are, i.e. Rangers, SF, Seals, etc.The intense training as well as real world situations make for very close working environments. So IMO, the REAL questions should be, do we WANT well functioning COHESIVE military units, or do we cave and go for PC and have a unit that just works together and hopes to get the job done? Given the stakes, it is MY opinion that one would want the unit to function at its peak performance all the time. You have to be able to trust every member of your unit, if there is one weak link, it effects the safety and moral of the whole, and one must absolutely consider that in real world situations. It is much different than a typical civilian office environment.
PCD is absolutely right about the disruption of soldiers. He's even more right about discrimination against the military by the colleges.
Meg, you said: "All homosexuals are dicriminated agaisnt, regardless of how they behave." That is utter BS. As SFC Proctor said in the 3rd reply of this thread,
"The Army policy is:
Solicitation of one's sexual orientation is not allowed.
Homosexual acts are illegal.
Homosexual conduct is disruptive of military cohesion.
Soldiers who commit homosexual acts will be separated from the Army."
The military is not even allowed to ask about a soldier's orientation. Period. Unmarried heterosexual
acts in the military are also not allowed and punishable by discharge. That's just a fact. I know of soldiers who've been let go for straight up adutery having absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
Also, you said: "No one in the Military would be educated if it were not for academia. Don't like it..."
Again false. The military trains it's own. Do you really think the main bulk of the military, 18-21 year old guys, are college grads? Ever hear of West Point? Clearly not all "academia" is bad, just the liberal academia that twists the truth and is anti-American.
Jez said: "Why is it that federal funding is seen in such a different light from state funding?"
Jez, the military is federally funded, not funded by the state and that's why it matters.
Meg, I don't think PCD is lying. I think his comment, "students ARE being prevented from enlisting." is not the same thing as you said, "students not being able to enlist." He's talking about the many colleges that have barred the military from coming to campus to recruit. That equals being prevented from enlisting because the opportunity isn't there on post. Thats' what PCD is saying.
Finally, Meg, you said:
"Betty, Did you know that lots of other countires allow homosexuals in their armies?"
Yes, we both know that; but then, they aren't the most powerful Army in the world, are they? That would be the United States Army.
You may not want us. You may not like us. You think we are being elitist because we speak often of patriotism, duty, corps, self-sacrifice, honor, code, chain of command, leadership, past wars, conflicts, and covert ops. Some even think we are dumb and blind followers without a reasoning or rational bone in our bodies. You call us facists, baby killers, drones, jack-booted thugs, parasites, war mongers, pleebs (that's a good one, I got that one in the Newark Airport while PCSing back from USAFE), and extremists. You think we are out of touch and spend too much of the budget and more should be going to our schools (hmmm, that's a funny one too), or welfare, or just a cause to which you have become attached. You do not believe that any foreign force would actually attack us, in our sleep, without provocation, and try to destroy everything that makes this country great. You praise those that take to foreign soil and speak out against this country, yet look down your nose at the man or woman taking off their hat, placing hand over heart, during the National Anthem. You think it a cause to protest out in front of hospitals where young soldiers are in pain, families are visiting, and their pain is even greater. You do not know the copious amount of time spent studying world history, war, foreign and domestic battles or small skirmishes, political systems and culture, as well as language studies coupled with deportment (military bearing is the term we use). You may not believe in preemptive actions to stave off an even greater threat. You may think that HUMINT (human intel) and SIGINT (signals or communications intel) are abhorrent and should be stopped, even though you'd love to have the answers to a test you are about to take.
Let's all be honest. There are a significant number of personnel in the US Military that are career military and have more experience, training, and love for this subject which affords them a sort of self-assuredness - often seen as arrogance. There is more to this than meets the eye, and with enough intel and experience, you might sing a different tune.
Dirty little secret: you need us.
Happy little fact: we know it.
Huge Guarantee: we'll always be there to protect.
Obvious Result: we get no thanks, 'cause less and less of you learn because we have gotten better at what we do.
Biggest Reaction: we are degraded for being who we are.
And that last one, biggest reaction, my friends, is bigotry. Bigotry goes many ways, is in many forms, and takes all comers.
This has nothing at all to do with funds for universities. Research isn't the only game in town. The private sector, especially entrepreneurship, is more beneficial to the US Military than universities. The situation where toys for the military come from universities is becoming less and less prevalent. Not everyone in development is swimming in degrees. Not every degree is applied to the actual job at hand.
It isn't the book or the professor, it is the student. And, books don't come from universities but private publishers. Odd how that works, too, you can pay to have your words printed and people will buy them. Amazing! Do I need a professor to make this all happen?
Boy Scouts, Recruiters on campus, Religion, Conservatism, Capitalism, US Military, Big Business, Pro-Life ... c'mon, we all know the drill.
Rius has a great book, "Marx for Beginners" where I learned a great deal, sorta self-taught on some stuff (got your six, Chief). Walking through East Berlin during the height of the Cold War - more learning goin' on. Standing face to face with a foreign power hell-bent on removing me from the face of the earth - try it, it'll show you new paths to enlightenment.
That's a weak point. Everybody knows the army exists and are capable of seeking enrollment. You have to ask whether those who need someone handing out the forms is sufficiently motivated.
And where does the Military find people to "train its own." If you go far enough up the chair, there is bound to be a college-educated people there somewhere. Oh, and the books do come from professors at colleges. Open one up sometime and you will see where each of the authors teach.
PCD is lying, because no one is being prevented from signing up. I KNOW people who did it in law school. If their schools didn't allow the military on, they simply went off campus to do so.
Here's another dirty little secret, the military needs the schools otherwise why would any of this be important?