ACADEMIA'S ARROGANCE

NY Post ^ | December 11, 2005 | george will

[ncountylee]

December 11, 2005 -- THE entitlement mentality produces petulant insistence on an ever-higher ratio of rights to responsibilities. Unsurprisingly, this mentality flourishes on campuses, where tenured faculty and privileged students live entitled lives supported by the taxes and generosity of others. The mentality was on vivid display in the Supreme Court last Tuesday when an association of 36 law schools and faculties asserted an audacious entitlement. Many schools bar military recruiters because the schools oppose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military. The schools asked the court to declare unconstitutional, as a violation of the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and association, the law that denies federal funds to any school that denies military recruiters the same access to students that any other employer enjoys.

Federal assistance to institutions of higher education was about $35 billion last year, so the schools flinch from the price tag on their gay-rights principles, which in this case dovetail neatly with their anti-military prejudices. The schools cite the principle that government cannot condition receipt of a government benefit on the loss of a constitutional right. The government replies that Congress frequently makes the receipt of federal funds conditional on the recipient doing certain things to further a legitimate government interest, such as recruiting.

And the government denies that the law on recruiters' access abridges schools' rights of speech and association. The schools' lawyer argued that it does because the "forced hosting" of recruiters amounts to a "crisis of conscience" over compelled and subsidized speech. The schools say they are compelled to communicate a message of support for the military's policy regarding gays, and to subsidize the military's message of disapproval of gays.

[Tax-chick]

There's no Constitutional authority for Federal government payments to universities, period. Stop it all.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is the 19th case in the Supreme Court for which I've written a brief. This last one was ghost-written, since I've resigned my membership in the Court's Bar. I agree with George Will that this arrogant stance of the law schools will be slapped down by the Court.

The reason for the decision will be based on the 55 MPH decision concerning federal aid to state highway construction. It is even simpler than Will suggests.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Ben Franklin's Greatest Invention"

[oh8eleven]

Today's schools bristle with moral principles that they urge upon the -- so they think -- benighted society beyond their gates. But as [Chief Justice]Roberts blandly reminded the schools regarding their desire to bar military recruiters: "You are perfectly free to do that, if you don't take the money."
Defund the SOBs now!

[Uncledave]

I'm likin' Roberts

[purpleland]

The best exemplar for academia's state of mind and irs "worthiness" is manic antagonist Ward Churchill of UColo. Churchill is vicious antiAmerican "state" employee.

[SAMS]

"Many schools bar military recruiters because the schools oppose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prevents openly gay people from serving in the military"

This stupid reason really chaps my hide. These academic types could give a tinkers fart for gays in the military. They just hate the military and any excuse is a good one for them. If they started allowing gays to serve openly tomorrow, these chuckle heads would find another reason to keep them off campuses.

[CPOSharky]

Since when is stopping speech (banning recruiters) by the college, on campus, a violation of the college's free speech?

[Gay State Conservative]

The reason for the decision will be based on the 55 MPH decision concerning federal aid to state highway construction.

I'm no lawyer (and I don't even play one on TV) but,unlike in the "55 MPH" case,I can see a "freedom of speech" issue,a "compelled speech" issue (Wolley v Maynard,US Supreme Court case)and a "freedom of association" issue as well.

Please don't get me wrong...I hope that the law schools lose this case but I see at least four solid votes for the law schools here (those four being the usual suspects).

[coloradan]

The schools cite the principle that government cannot condition receipt of a government benefit on the loss of a constitutional right.

They of course had nothing to say when HUD wanted to ban guns from residents of federal housing projects.

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, the "usual suspects" on the Court will vote in favor of the law schools. But as Chief Justice Roberts noted in the argument, the law schools are welcome to bar the military recruiters from their campuses at any time. All they have to do is give up the money that is connected to the recruiters.

That's what makes this a money issue, not a free speech issue. The law schools can say anything they want to. They just can't do that on the taxpayers' money. In reality, the law schools are no different than the "performance artist" who demanded federal support for getting nude on stage and covering herself in chocolate.

She was a fool who had a gross misunderstanding of what freedom of speech means. The law schools are much worse, because they are in the business of TEACHING constitutional law. When liars and fools are teaching a subject, what does that do to the students?

John / Billybob

[ncountylee]

A great lesson to teach liberals.

You don't die from pain.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Maybe, but is there also a Constitutional right for these Universities to receive taxpayer funding?

[Gay State Conservative]

the law schools are welcome to bar the military recruiters from their campuses at any time. All they have to do is give up the money that is connected to the recruiters.

But,by that logic,all that the New Hampshire pacifist (Wolley v Maynard) would have had to do in order to have avoided displaying a political statement on his license plate with which he disagreed ("Live Free Or Die") was to live in a state whose license plates didn't carry such objectionable (to him) statements....or to stop driving.

[joesnuffy]

The chocolate covered academian nuts are the best

[Congressman Billybob]

You are missing the point. Everyone who wanted to drive in New Hampshire was required by law to display a license with that slogan. All 39 of these law schools are private institutions. No one is required to attend them. Each is free to adopt whatever views it chooses to do.

The law schools are not a government. There is no compulsion here. The license plate case has NOTHING TO DO with the law school case.

John / Billybob

[the final gentleman]

________________________________________________________

"But,by that logic,all that the New Hampshire pacifist (Wolley v Maynard) would have had to do in order to have avoided displaying a political statement on his license plate with which he disagreed ("Live Free Or Die") was to live in a state whose license plates didn't carry such objectionable (to him) statements....or to stop driving." - Gay State Conservative
________________________________________________________

Yes, Gay State, why do you ask?

[Gay State Conservative]

As I stated earlier,I hope that the law schools lose this case.But,as I understand their argument and as I understand previous court rulings,it seems to me that they might win.

However,"Congressman BilllyBob" (a real lawyer) has assured me (an amateur lawyer) that my logic in so believing is completely flawed.

I just wish that I had as much confidence in the integrity of current Supreme Court justices as does "Congressman BillyBob".