Posted on 12/03/2004 2:14:34 AM PST by Former Military Chick
PHILADELPHIA — Colleges and universities can ban military recruiters from campus without fear of losing government funds, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday struck down a decade-old federal law known as the Solomon Amendment, saying it infringed on the free-speech rights of law schools that had sought to limit on-campus recruiting in response to the military's ban on homosexuals.
Previous Federal court won't dismiss challenge to military-recruiting rule
Ruling in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of 25 law schools around the country, a three-judge panel decided 2-1 that the government's threat to yank funding amounted to compelling the schools to take part in speech they didn't agree with.
"While no doubt military lawyers are critical to the efficient operation of the armed forces, mere incantation of the need for legal talent cannot override a clear First Amendment impairment," the 3rd Circuit majority wrote in in Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld.
The majority added that the law may have had the unintended effect of hampering recruiting by engendering ill-will among potential recruits.
The 3rd Circuit majority overturned an earlier decision by a federal judge that the people challenging the law were unlikely to prevail at trial.
The ruling may affect all institutions of higher learning, but the case revolved around law schools because most had developed policies prohibiting discrimination by on-campus groups on the basis of sexual orientation.
Yesterday's ruling represented the first time a court had enjoined the government from enforcing the law.
The Justice Department, which represented the government in the case, said it was examining the decision and reviewing its appeal options.
"The United States continues to believe that the Solomon Amendment is constitutional. As we argued in our brief, we believe that Congress may deny federal funds to universities which discriminate and may act to protect the men and women of our armed forces in their ability to recruit Americans who wish to join them in serving our country," the agency said in a statement.
One judge on the panel wrote a stinging dissent. Judge Ruggero John Aldisert said he was personally disturbed that law schools would, "as an academic exercise," ignore the consequences a recruiting ban would have on the military's ability to compete with well-heeled law firms for young talent.
"They obviously do not desire that our men and women in the armed services, all members of a closed society, obtain optimum justice in military courts with the best-trained lawyers and judges," Aldisert said.
He said he disagreed with plaintiffs who argued that the schools were being asked to violate their own anti-discrimination policies by welcoming recruiters who won't take openly gay men and women.
"We cannot conclude that the mere presence of a uniformed military recruiter permits or compels the inference that a law school's anti-discrimination policy is violated," Aldisert said. "The subjective idiosyncratic impressions of some law students, some professors, or some anti-war protesters are not the test. What we know as men and women we cannot forget as judges."
The two-judge majority based its decision in part on an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the Boy Scouts of America could bar homosexuals from becoming scouts or troop leaders.
The court reasoned that if the Boy Scouts could legally reject gays because it had a core belief that homosexuality is illegitimate behavior, then other institutions could impose an opposite type of restriction if it had a core value that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.
"The court understood that if bigots have a First Amendment right to exclude gays, then enlightened institutions have a right to exclude bigots," said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which was the lead plaintiff in the suit.
Now it is up to Congress to pull the funding for institutions that bar military recruiters. The mechanism where federal funds are tied automatically is no longer operative, but there is no law requiring Congress to fund any particular institution at any particular level. That is a political decision.
If Congress yanked the funding for these Liberal Meccas, you would see them do an about face on military recruiters faster than you can say "Booyah!".
Drug dealers freely sell their wares on the campus of NYU. It is easier to buy drugs on NYU than it is to buy milk, because the drug dealers deliver. It is not possible to walk from one end of the campus to the other without being solicited to buy drugs at least twice.
As far as the value of military recruiting is concerned, I think we will have to agree to disagree. By the time one is done attaining all his diplomas, his military utility is about nil. In order to have an effective military, soldiers must be recruited while they are young and trainable. A foxhole is no place for a seminar on the socio-economic implications of charging machine gun nests in general, and the one across the way in particular.
Now I must go and be on with my day. Nice to meet you...
I am very strongly resisting the urge to react personally to the insults you have levied.
So instead I'll simply rebut your ill reasoned and uninformed opinion.
First off, there are few callings higher than that of military service.
Second, there are many college students who are in college for the wrong reasons and don't really want to be there.
Third, recruiters are more carefully screened and monitored than you can believe.
Fourth, the recruiters are fullfilling the mission that Congress has set out for them at the direction of the Department of Defense. Congress itself directs the US to have a military force.
Fifth, universities are not barring recruiters from other companies or organizations, and even if they did, those others do not have the Congressional mandate to provide men and women for the defense of our (or at least my) country.
Only an idiot would imply that military recruiters mesmerize or somehow entice college students to so something against their will.
Your opinion reflects a character devoid of...oh, never mind.
Apology accepted. I didn't understand that your handle (name) actually indicated that you are not America.
And I'll admit that I took this personally...many years ago I was one of the Army's leading college recruiters and it truly irriated me to see them besmirched.
In the US it is very easy for kids to get into college and then run out of money and/or energy to continue with their studies. Typically students fresh out of the military are energetic, focused and more mature than those of comparable age. Two to four years in the military often makes a for better college student.
Until we meet again...
Notice that the AP does not use the name of the two judges in the majority decision. Why not, you ask. Answer: AP is aware that the judges will be inundated by those who object most strongly to the decision and thus they circle the wagons and protect those of thier own "progressive" persuasion. In case anyone still claims not to see bias in the press you can point to this article as an example.
I know you did you job well Brother. I volunteered and was accepted for drill sergeant duty. We both put in many long hours and I am sure we did a great service for our country our soldiers/selves. I entered the US Army(RA) 1967 knew fully well what my recruiter was doing. I thank that recruiter for turning my life around and giving me hope where there was none. Recruiters are consultants who can give hope and prosperity to many students who would otherwise wind up in the soup-line blaming America for their demise.God bless the Recruiters.
Not to bismirch recruiters, but if I had a dime for every lie my recruiter told me, I'd be rich. Conversations with other vets in my adult life have left me to believe that my experience is very much the norm.
Actually one of the two judges in the majority was appointed by Reagan.
I believe that it is under congresses discression who money is spent? I know that the judiciary does not have the power to tell congress how to spend money. It is time to get the libtards off the bench. We had the same problem at the law school that I graduated from, they were denying the students access to a possible career choice, imagine if they denied entry on campus to the Lambda Foundation there would be Hell to pay.
I understand your position and won't argue against it.
But I've also seen the other side, kids and parents who heard only what they wanted to hear, who didn't listen to 'if you qualify and a vacancy exists' caveats, who got so engrossed in what they wanted that they didn't hear or heed the warnings.
Anymore, all it takes is an allegation of imporpriety and there is an investigation.
For many years now, field recruiters and those at the MEPS use video discs to show what basic is like, what MOS's are like, and what options like Airborne and Ranger are like. These videos are very accurate, go to a recruiting station and see for yourself.
It doesn't do us any good to lie to the kids. Some will always do that, you have it in every field. But those guys don't normally last long, and I lasted 7 years without any investigations.
Thanks! Life on the Trail is no peice if cake. People don't realize how tough the Drills have it. But the nice thing is that many kids aspire to one day be a Drill Sergeant; no one wants to be a recruiter!
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.