| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| US Military to Leftist Law Schools: The 1st Amendment Applies to Us Too |
| 2005-02-02 |
| Don't ask. Don't tell. Having no desire to crash our e-mail server, we'll save discussion of gays in the military for another day. Rather, today's subject is lawyers in the military. Surely Americans of all points of view can agree that in an age of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the military can use the best attorneys it can get. Attorneys, my ass. They can use some information warfare people to counter the incredible amount of lying eminating from our fifth column press. So it's a disgrace that some of the nation's law schools, objecting to the Pentagon's "discrimination policies," refuse to permit military recruiters to make their pitch on campus, relegating them instead to unofficial off-campus venues. Law students pondering their first career move can be wined and dined by fancy firms that set up recruitment tables at campus job fairs, but they have to stroll over to the local Day's Inn to seek out the lonely military recruiter. To put it another way, the same liberals who object that the military includes too many lower-class kids won't let military recruiters near the schools that contain students who will soon join the upper-class elite. It's almost enough to make us contemplate restoring the draft, starting with law school students. I'd say commanders would reject that saying they don't need a fifth columnist in their rear if they can avoid it Needless to say, such scholastic shenanigans don't go down well with Congress, which in 1994 passed the Solomon Amendment, named for the late New York Republican, Gerald Solomon. The law requires schools that receive federal funds to provide equal access to military recruiters. Today, the House is scheduled to vote on a resolution brought by Alabama Republican Mike Rogers that would restate the House's support for the Solomon Amendment. Something similar passed the House and Senate by overwhelming margins last year and was incorporated into the Defense Authorization bill. The impetus for Mr. Rogers's move is a November ruling by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in favor of a group of law schools and legal scholars that had contested the Solomon law. The 2-1 opinion found that the Solomon Amendment violates the schools' First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Next stop is the Supreme Court, which is expected to take the appeal that the Justice Department plans to bring. First amendment only applies to us leftists, not to anyone we disagree with There are many peculiarities to this lawsuit, starting with the fact that the group that brought it--the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights--declines to release the names of the 26 law schools and faculties that belong to its coalition. Some of the participants (New York University and Georgetown, for example) have outed themselves since the suit was brought in 2003, but others steadfastly maintain their own don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Of course. They can't be good elitists if they do the right thing and expect everyone to do it as well. In any event, there should be no legal question about Congress's right to put conditions on grants of federal funds to universities. It does this all the time--including requirements that colleges adhere to certain civil rights and gender standards. With a few exceptions, universities have no trouble going along and courts have no problem letting them. I say f*ck law schools. Take away the federal tit and THEN send in recruiters If, as is likely, the Supreme Court overturns the appeals court decision, that will be the end of it. Almost all universities, public and private, take millions of dollars in federal money that would be next to impossible to give up. That's especially true of the elite schools, both public and private. Still, it would be nice to think that the nation's universities would welcome the military for reasons other than the mercenary. Patriotism, perhaps? Elites only welcome the military when they are hurt or dead |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #11 Funny side effect: If this goes, then the states can use it as a precedent to prevent highway funds cuts and can set the drinkign age and BAC levels and seatbelt laws any damned way they want - because its the treat of federal fund witholding that dirves those laws into compliance with Federal (as opposed to state/local) desires. Same goes for "Workfare" laws passed under Clinton and enforced under Bush: States can say they will just give the money away and disregard the work requirements for the funds - especially in places like CA (Bezerkely). And they will be able to successfully sue based on this sort of precedent. This is a big can of worms - and you bet the courts will uphold the recruiters - because if they dont, then all kinds of hell breaks loose over Congress' inability to withhold funds conditionally. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-02 8:51:49 PM |
| #10 Funny side effect: If this goes, then the states can use it as a precedent to prevent highway funds cuts and can set the drinkign age and BAC levels and seatbelt laws any damned way they want - because its the treat of federal fund witholding that dirves those laws into compliance with Federal (as opposed to state/local) desires. Same goes for "Workfare" laws passed under Clinton and enforced under Bush: States can say they will just give the money away and disregard the work requirements for the funds - especially in places like CA (Bezerkely). And they will be able to successfully sue based on this sort of precedent. This is a big can of worms - and you bet the courts will uphold the recruiters - because if they dont, then all kinds of hell breaks loose over Congress' inability to withhold funds conditionally. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-02 8:51:49 PM |
| #9 Funny side effect: If this goes, then the states can use it as a precedent to prevent highway funds cuts and can set the drinkign age and BAC levels and seatbelt laws any damned way they want - because its the treat of federal fund witholding that dirves those laws into compliance with Federal (as opposed to state/local) desires. Same goes for "Workfare" laws passed under Clinton and enforced under Bush: States can say they will just give the money away and disregard the work requirements for the funds - especially in places like CA (Bezerkely). And they will be able to successfully sue based on this sort of precedent. This is a big can of worms - and you bet the courts will uphold the recruiters - because if they dont, then all kinds of hell breaks loose over Congress' inability to withhold funds conditionally. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-02-02 8:51:49 PM |
| #8 Hey, we're doing our part for the war effort. You think it's easy filing those Guantanamo prisoner lawsuits for the ACLU? |
| Posted by: A. Chaser: Attorney at Law 2005-02-02 1:58:55 PM |
| #7 Draft the profs to serve ICC summons to bin Laden, Kimmie and the mullahs. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-02-02 1:49:21 PM |
| #6 give em a fork and let em clear the minefields of the 3rd world |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-02 1:28:35 PM |
| #5 Draft beer not teachers! |
| Posted by: BH 2005-02-02 1:27:24 PM |
| #4 Drafting law students? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Draft the teachers and the staff! |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-02-02 1:25:52 PM |
| #3 Perhaps a practical demonstration of military skills will drive the point home? |
| Posted by: BH 2005-02-02 10:32:12 AM |
| #2 You have to love the idea of drafting lawyers. I think all of them would be a good start. Give them rifles and send them to the front. Any front, as long as there's shooting involved. With other troops behind them to help them along if they feel like deserting. |
| Posted by: Weird Al 2005-02-02 10:30:51 AM |
| #1 Remove the federal funds. In fact I think the feds should remove federal funds from any organization or government body who refuses to follow federal law. Including Immigration laws. Either that or send in the recruiters anyway. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-02-02 9:31:04 AM |