Posted on 09/21/2003 12:38:17 PM PDT by vannrox
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A group of law schools, professors and students is suing the Department of Defense, alleging its requirement that law schools allow military recruiters on campus violates the First Amendment.
Many universities have barred recruiters, arguing the military's ban on homosexuals violated nondiscrimination rules.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
(The following statement was written by AALS Executive Director Carl Monk. It was sent to Deans of AALS Member and Fee-Paid Schools on August 13, 1997.)
Military Recruiting at Law School Career Services Offices:
Update on Actions Regarding Executive Committee Regulation 6.19, the Obligation to Provide Equal Opportunity to Obtain Employment Without Discrimination
Since 1990, when the AALS House of Representatives voted unanimously to amend Bylaw 6-4 to add "sexual orientation" to the list of protected categories under the Association's nondiscrimination provisions, the Association has been committed to requiring member schools to take the steps necessary to be in compliance with this policy. Among these steps, the Association has required, pursuant to Executive Committee Regulation 6.19, that employers that seek to use law school career services provide written assurance that they will not discriminate based upon sexual orientation or any other of the protected categories.
Nearly all employers asking to use law school services in recruitment now agree to certify that they do not discriminate on any of the bases enumerated in the bylaw. The troubling exception stems from the federal law that mandates the military to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Accordingly, the difficult issues that our rules have presented involve our ban against military recruiters at member schools.
The United States Congress has sought to penalize the refusal of law schools and many other educational institutions to permit military recruiters to use their placement facilities. It has passed two statutes, the most recent one of which would bar a school that did not permit the military to recruit from receiving federal funds from various agencies, some of which provide money to law schools. Because the Executive Committee concluded that some schools would find it extremely difficult to forgo these funds, it has decided to excuse non-compliance with Executive Committee Regulation 6.19 only for military recruiters, as long as a school provides "amelioration" in a form that both expresses publicly the law school's disapproval of the discrimination against gays and lesbians by the military and provides a safe and protective atmosphere for gay and lesbian students.
Under the terms of these statutes, known popularly as the Solomon Amendments, a law school that refuses to permit access to military recruiters will lose funds they receive not only from the Department of Defense but also from the Departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services and other "related agencies." These funds include some financial aid for law students.
The Department of Education has not yet issued its regulations pursuant to the statute, but I have been advised by the Department's General Counsel's office that it has determined that Pell Grants and other grants made directly to students will not be affected by this legislation. On the other hand, it has determined that grants for students that are made through the school, such as Perkins Loan Funds and Work-Study funds, are covered by the legislation. Thus, law schools that do not permit the military to use their placement facilities risk losing Perkins funds and Work Study moneys that are critical to many of their students. They also risk losing research and other grants that their faculty obtain through these departments and agencies.
The potential financial consequences to American law students of the expanded Solomon Amendment are ominous. Last year, 140 law schools reported to the American Bar Association that their students received Work-Study funding, in an average amount per school of $82,810. In addition, 133 law schools received Perkins Loan funds. Although it is not clear how much Perkins funding is at risk at each law school, it is clear that nearly 90 percent of American law schools stand to lose either Work-Study or Perkins Loan funds or both. The AALS has as yet been unable to determine how soon schools that refuse to permit the military to use their facilities are in jeopardy of losing funds or exactly what notice and process schools will receive before funds are terminated. The General Counsel's office in the Department of Education is still working on these issues and intends to issue regulations soon. We will, of course, advise schools as soon as we know more about the process and the timing.
The Executive Committee has considered at length the implications of the Solomon
Amendment and the Department of Education's determination that the Amendment includes Perkins Loan and Work-Study funds. The Committee recognizes that the Amendment, as construed, places most law schools in the difficult position of either foregoing financial aid funds that are critical to their students or receiving the financial aid funds but failing to provide an environment that adequately protects its students from the experience of discrimination. The Committee believes that each school must be permitted to decide for itself how to resolve this conflict without being held in impermissible violation of the bylaws. Thus, so long as the Solomon Amendment remains in effect in its current form, each member school will be free to choose whether to continue to comply with the bylaw requirements as it applies to the military. Schools that choose not to comply will have their noncompliance excused so long as they engage in appropriate activities to ameliorate the negative effects that granting access to the military has on the quality of the learning environment for its students, particularly its gay and lesbian students.
Before making a decision to permit the military to interview, we urge each school to examine the actual extent of financial aid and other funds that it is at risk of losing, to explore ways of avoiding the loss of funds through turning to alternative sources, and to consider the range of ways that it might adopt to ameliorate the negative effects of granting access, if access were to be granted.
For purposes of compliance with the bylaws, schools that choose to permit access to the military may demonstrate adequate "amelioration" by a number of different actions. As a starting point, each school should assure that all its students, as well as others in the law school community, are informed each year that the military discriminates on a basis not permitted by the school's nondiscrimination rules and the AALS bylaws and that the military is being permitted to interview only because of the loss of funds that would otherwise be imposed under the Solomon Amendment (or, in appropriate cases, because of higher university directives that compel the law school to permit access). Other ameliorative acts that schools might consider include forums or panels for the discussion of the military policy or for the discussion of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although no specific type of amelioration is required, the Executive Committee will examine the actions schools take in the context of the totality of the school's efforts to support an hospitable environment for its students. In assessing that environment, the Association will consider, among other things, the presence of an active lesbian and gay student organization and the presence of openly lesbian and gay faculty and staff. We would be grateful if schools would advise us of effective amelioration strategies in which they have engaged so that we can periodically share those strategies with other member schools.
As part of its own efforts to enable schools to provide hospitable environments for their students, the AALS has decided to seek permission from the court to file an amicus brief in the case of Able v. United States, in which Judge Eugene Nickerson of the Eastern District of New York has recently held that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy denies lesbians and gay men the equal protection of the laws. The United States has announced that it will appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The AALS interest in the case stems from the fact that the military policy, coupled with the Solomon Amendment, directly affects member schools' capacities to assure a nondiscriminatory environment for their students.
August 13, 1997
Anybody remember the 55 MPH speed limit? It was in all the papers. The states went all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was no business of the Congress to set the speed limits in Elephant Breath, Montana. They were quite right, but that's not want Congress did.
The law said that states should set their own speed limits at 55 MPH. And if they chose not to, then they would not get any more federal highway aid. There was a lot of noise in the state capitols. Then there was a loud sucking sound in the state treasuries. Then all the state legislatures fell in line.
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it ruled in accord with the nursery rhyme, "He who pays the piper, calls the tune." It WAS the business of Congress to attach conditions to its grants of money. Therefore, the law was constitutional.
Since these "esteemed" law professors are challenging the same type of law, they should and will lose. I only hope that they are also embarrassed by an award of attorneys' fees and costs against them for filing such an obviously phony case. They certainly have it coming.
Congressman Billybob
Seems like these same folks think it's "the American Way" when it's their "diversity" scheme, or "speed limit sceme" or "blood alcohol limit" scheme, or other statist bovine excrement that is being forced upon the people, at the threat of withholding their own tax money from them. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and it's their ox being gored, they are singing a different tune. (Enough cliches? :).
The difference in this situation is that the schools are indeed receiving money from the DoD, so a contractual relationship exists. If they don't want the recruiters, they don't have to take the money. That's the case with private schools at least. For publicly owned and supported schools, the rules are different. They not only have to accept recruiters, they must accept ROTC units on their campuses. (In the case of land grant instiutions that is)
Just because the faculty has a particular set of warped political and social beliefs, it does not follow that the students do as well...at least not all of them.
I believe "Elephant Breath" is actually located near the campuses of Havard and Boston College.
These people are such jerks. Their "core educational philosophy" is a hatred of America and what it stands for today -- symbolized by the U. S. military.
Here's a blast from the past, from our very good friends at Columbia University (yes, the same University that employs a professor calling for "a million Mogadisus" and the wholesale killing of U. S. military personnel). Enjoy the anguish in this press release!
Communications - Office of the President
October 10, 2002
To all members of the University Community:
With great regret, I have authorized the General Counsel of the University to inform the United States Air Force that our Law School has agreed not to enforce its non-discrimination policy against military recruiters. The implications for the University, if we do not accede to the Air Force’s demands, are staggering. They have threatened to cut off approximately 70% of all federal funding - not just military funding - to the entire University, not just the Law School. This amount is approximately 300 million dollars. These funds support numerous faculty, students, and widespread research, including important health research. The loss of funding would essentially paralyze the entire research and educational operation of the University.
There are three additional points I would like to emphasize. The first is that the University’s rule (and the Law School’s rule in particular) prohibiting employers from using our career placement services if they discriminate on enumerated bases, including sexual orientation, is rooted in a deep moral sense of what is relevant and irrelevant in the treatment of individual human beings. The rule is not a political or policy judgment about what is an effective means to some end but rather a fundamental principle about the nature of right and wrong, about what constitutes invidious discrimination. It is also, in that sense of a moral principle, now widely shared throughout the society and reflected in the employment standards applied in both the private and the public sectors.
The second point is that, with respect to this particular area of career services, the University has sought to apply this basic moral principle precisely in order to protect our own students. Our responsibility here has been to ensure that our students do not suffer the indignity of being excluded from the employment process (in this case, serving one’s country in the armed forces) for invidious reasons.
The last point is to draw attention to another major issue at stake here – one that involves the relationship between the federal government and the nation’s university. It has long been recognized that the enormous funding power of the state can all too easily be turned into a lever of coercion. The ready availability of that power requires self-restraints by officials, for otherwise we will lose our liberties not to official prohibitions but rather to the conditions attached to the purse. Such self-restraint is especially called for when colleges and universities are involved. The principle of academic freedom is one of the hallmarks of our country, with proven benefits from science to the arts to the professions. Respect for the autonomy of these institutions is critical. And, so, to resolve a disagreement between the government and universities by threatening to call back virtually all federal funding, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars supporting thousands of people engaged in research and education, is to threaten seriously that very historic commitment.
We will continue to pursue whatever legal remedies are available.
Lee C. Bollinger
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications%20files/militaryrecruit.htm
Well, these jack-holes can thank the good Senator S.S. Fatboy Ted Kennedy for their plight...he was the CHAMPION of demanding that if a skrewell takes a SINGLE $ of tax money, it MUST COMPLY with ALL Gubmint rules and Regs...it's how they were slamming Religious schools in the 90's!
So, the sauce for the Gander isn't to their liking?
TOUGH! Life Sucks, buy a HELMET!
Do what the Religious schools did...stop TAKING TAXPAYER $$$!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.