Full Version: Equal access for military recruiters on campus
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether law schools that refuse to allow military recruiters on campus because of the military's stance on gays could suffer the loss of federal funds.
A decade ago, a number of law schools began refusing to give military recruiters equal access on campus because the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violated the schools’ policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In response to this refusal to permit military recruiters on campus, the Solomon amendment was enacted. It provides that schools that do not give equal access to military recruiters on campus will lose federal funds.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1115037322599
The Solomon amendment has been challenged as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech under the first amendment.
The schools’ argument goes like this:
In response it is argued:
Questions for Debate:
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
A decade ago, a number of law schools began refusing to give military recruiters equal access on campus because the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy violated the schools’ policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In response to this refusal to permit military recruiters on campus, the Solomon amendment was enacted. It provides that schools that do not give equal access to military recruiters on campus will lose federal funds.
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1115037322599
The Solomon amendment has been challenged as an unconstitutional restriction of free speech under the first amendment.
The schools’ argument goes like this:
QUOTE
Anyone who sees military recruiters on campus will assume the military's policy on homosexuals is endorsed by the school. Therefore, the school, by being forced to host the recruiters (or lose funds), is forced, in effect, to mouth the government's message -which, FAIR argues, violates the First Amendment.
http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/arc...php/t-2618.html
http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/arc...php/t-2618.html
In response it is argued:
QUOTE
[T]he assertion that anyone would confuse the military's message with the host school's message is ludicrous.
. . . .
It's important to note what the Solomon Amendment does not do. It does not prohibit on-campus protests of military recruitment. It does not prohibit law professors from arguing, in class, that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is illegal or immoral discrimination - and discouraging students, for this reason, from working for the JAG Corps.
http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/arc...php/t-2618.html
. . . .
It's important to note what the Solomon Amendment does not do. It does not prohibit on-campus protests of military recruitment. It does not prohibit law professors from arguing, in class, that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is illegal or immoral discrimination - and discouraging students, for this reason, from working for the JAG Corps.
http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/arc...php/t-2618.html
Questions for Debate:
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
QUOTE
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Not if the school doesn't want them there. If a school is a private institution, it has the right to say who can enter the school and who can't.QUOTE
(2) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
Not, not at all, that's a heck of a stretch.QUOTE
(3) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
No because the government does not have First Amendment rights. The government doesn't have the right to recruit people, or the right not to be censored. The Constitution restricts the government, it gives the government no liberties.CP
CP-- It is the schools that are arguing the first amendment, not the government. The schools argue that if they bring military recruiters on campus it is seen as an endorsement of the don't ask don't tell policy. In essence, the schools argue that they are being forced to make a "statement" in this regard.
Ah, I see, thanks for clearing that up. Then it is the schools who are making that stretch of a connection. By allowing someone in your school, that doesn't mean that you're endorsing all of their policies, that's ridiculous. So no, there is no First Amendment issue here, allowing someone to be somewhere does not equate to you agreeing with all of their policies.
CP
CP
Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
If the campus allows it otherwise you’ll have to describe ‘equal access.’ From the article: “Many law schools accepted this arrangement [after 9/11], but did not promote the military recruiters in the same way as they did other employers.” I could see enforcing physical access to the student body as enforceable. In other words, not allowing the school to make unreasonable restrictions on the recruiters with too many pre-approved campus areas. As far as promoting recruiters, though, I’m not sure campuses have to enthusiastically embrace any government program. I’d have to know how the new arrangement differs from the pre-Solomon Amendment era.
If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Yes.
Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
This isn’t so ludicrous. I was on my middle school’s sidewalk when I received my first Bible, with a chain fence separating a public institution from the public square. Had I received the Bible on the side of school property I would have assumed the school endorsed the ideas of those passing out religious material.
Would we be as comfortable if a similar statement is made in the defense of the ACLU seeking access to law students in a Christian college? I think the answer would be no.
If the campus allows it otherwise you’ll have to describe ‘equal access.’ From the article: “Many law schools accepted this arrangement [after 9/11], but did not promote the military recruiters in the same way as they did other employers.” I could see enforcing physical access to the student body as enforceable. In other words, not allowing the school to make unreasonable restrictions on the recruiters with too many pre-approved campus areas. As far as promoting recruiters, though, I’m not sure campuses have to enthusiastically embrace any government program. I’d have to know how the new arrangement differs from the pre-Solomon Amendment era.
If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Yes.
Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
QUOTE(hayleyanne @ Jun 1 2005, 05:31 PM)
[T]he assertion that anyone would confuse the military's message with the host school's message is ludicrous.
http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/arc...php/t-2618.html
http://www.argusleaderonline.com/forum/arc...php/t-2618.html
This isn’t so ludicrous. I was on my middle school’s sidewalk when I received my first Bible, with a chain fence separating a public institution from the public square. Had I received the Bible on the side of school property I would have assumed the school endorsed the ideas of those passing out religious material.
Would we be as comfortable if a similar statement is made in the defense of the ACLU seeking access to law students in a Christian college? I think the answer would be no.
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Yes. Lord knows the military needs every lawyer it can get. I think we should stop bombing people we don't like and just unleash a battalion of American lawyers on them. We could even fly them into enemy territory and drop them by parachute, but that would make them... no, I won't say it.
Seriously, I think that the military should have the same access that other entities have. And (getting silly again), given the amount of outsourcing going on by the military, a lawyer joining a regular law firm might find him/herself working on military cases anyway.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Certainly. And I think that the law schools should counter by sticking their tongues out at the feds, who should respond by calling them "neener-weeners". (I am having a problem taking this seriously.) But really, fair is fair -- no play, no pay.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, not at all. Besides, if the school were really uptight about it, they could just post a nasty sign next to the recruiter disavowing all connection with them.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
No. The school can still say whatever it wants. Yes, there is dat ole' debbil "chilling effect", but I think it's minor in this case.
Yes. Lord knows the military needs every lawyer it can get. I think we should stop bombing people we don't like and just unleash a battalion of American lawyers on them. We could even fly them into enemy territory and drop them by parachute, but that would make them... no, I won't say it.
Seriously, I think that the military should have the same access that other entities have. And (getting silly again), given the amount of outsourcing going on by the military, a lawyer joining a regular law firm might find him/herself working on military cases anyway.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Certainly. And I think that the law schools should counter by sticking their tongues out at the feds, who should respond by calling them "neener-weeners". (I am having a problem taking this seriously.) But really, fair is fair -- no play, no pay.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, not at all. Besides, if the school were really uptight about it, they could just post a nasty sign next to the recruiter disavowing all connection with them.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
No. The school can still say whatever it wants. Yes, there is dat ole' debbil "chilling effect", but I think it's minor in this case.
I was hoping to get more replies to this thread before posting what the district court and third circuit held on this issue.
Surprisingly, IMO, both the lower court and the third circuit held that the Solomon amendment is unconstitutional. Usually, the Supreme Court will wait to grant cert until a "split" in the circuits develops. They then step in to resolve that split. In this case, there is none, so you have to wonder why they agreed to take the case now. I believe it is because they want to clear up this erroroneous ruling from the third circuit and overturn the case.
Surprisingly, IMO, both the lower court and the third circuit held that the Solomon amendment is unconstitutional. Usually, the Supreme Court will wait to grant cert until a "split" in the circuits develops. They then step in to resolve that split. In this case, there is none, so you have to wonder why they agreed to take the case now. I believe it is because they want to clear up this erroroneous ruling from the third circuit and overturn the case.
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?Heck yes they want to take the money well enough but refuse to accept the conditions that go with it. Locking up a few deans for violating federal law might be just the ticket.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?It most certainly does, when the government puts conditions on receiving federal funds those valid, legally binding restrictions. Not only should the the government withdraw those funds, but demand a refund on all monies given while they refuse access.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?Give me a break! It sends one message and one message only that when accepting money from the federal government then one must accept the conditions placed on that money as well. The message is that the laws of the land must be obeyed.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?No it does not, but the barring of recruiters does. The law schools themselves are censoring the government which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?It most certainly does, when the government puts conditions on receiving federal funds those valid, legally binding restrictions. Not only should the the government withdraw those funds, but demand a refund on all monies given while they refuse access.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?Give me a break! It sends one message and one message only that when accepting money from the federal government then one must accept the conditions placed on that money as well. The message is that the laws of the land must be obeyed.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?No it does not, but the barring of recruiters does. The law schools themselves are censoring the government which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Yes. Doing so constitutes "political speech" in my book and thus would be extended first amendment protection.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
No, the two shouldn't be related. You are in effect punishing the students for the policy of the university. It also adds a coercive element to the speech since the funding isn't related to teachings about the military. Its about development of secondary education. Then again, I thought it was wrong for congress to coerce states regarding drinking age legislation by tying it to highway funds.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, the argument that the schools advanced in that case was just silly. That would be like having Strom Thurmond speak at your college and people infer that the college supported revocation of the civil rights act.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
Yes. I haven't seen the circuit opinion but I think you could make the argument that tying funding to speech adds a coercive premise to it. See #2 above for the other reason.
Yes. Doing so constitutes "political speech" in my book and thus would be extended first amendment protection.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
No, the two shouldn't be related. You are in effect punishing the students for the policy of the university. It also adds a coercive element to the speech since the funding isn't related to teachings about the military. Its about development of secondary education. Then again, I thought it was wrong for congress to coerce states regarding drinking age legislation by tying it to highway funds.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, the argument that the schools advanced in that case was just silly. That would be like having Strom Thurmond speak at your college and people infer that the college supported revocation of the civil rights act.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
Yes. I haven't seen the circuit opinion but I think you could make the argument that tying funding to speech adds a coercive premise to it. See #2 above for the other reason.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Jun 2 2005, 05:29 AM)
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?No it does not, but the barring of recruiters does. The law schools themselves are censoring the government which is a violation of the 1st Amendment.
QUOTE(doclotus)
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?Yes. Doing so constitutes "political speech" in my book and thus would be extended first amendment protection.
I disagree with the position that military recruiters are engaging in political speech -- which is also why I disagree with the university's claims. The military recruiters are doing exactly the same thing that commercial law firm recruiters are doing: recruiting candidates for jobs. This is commercial speech and so, while the military recruiters have no First Amendment claims to engage in that activity, neither do the universities have First Amendment claims to stop them.
Questions for Debate:
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
1. Military recruiters should have access to all school campuses because they solicit service to the security of America. Especially law schools should be aware it isn’t the military with authority over the constitution but the elected officials acting in their capacity of supporting the republic. DOD has no authority to circumvent civil rights.
2. Yes! For the force in opposition is the government and if they are against DOD then they should be against all government actions until the primary cause is resolved.
3. I hope so! It is the law of the land enacted by a majority of elected majority of our representatives. If the university disagrees with the majority of lawmakers they should encourage lawmakers to change the law. While it is apparent the policy is unconstitutional it should also be apparent that the majority of elected officials along with the president of the US enacted the policy and was singed into law. The campus should endorse the law of the land since they teach law. If the gay lawmakers in congress didn’t request Supreme Court reviews then it is apparent they found it within the constitution or the authority of the support of the republic to do so. Why would a university be allowed which law to support even if they are a law school, under what authority?
4. I see the violation of free speech to be against the learning institution and not the recruiters. A learning institution should offer all points of view on an issue and allow the students to use their judgment to decide right
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
1. Military recruiters should have access to all school campuses because they solicit service to the security of America. Especially law schools should be aware it isn’t the military with authority over the constitution but the elected officials acting in their capacity of supporting the republic. DOD has no authority to circumvent civil rights.
2. Yes! For the force in opposition is the government and if they are against DOD then they should be against all government actions until the primary cause is resolved.
3. I hope so! It is the law of the land enacted by a majority of elected majority of our representatives. If the university disagrees with the majority of lawmakers they should encourage lawmakers to change the law. While it is apparent the policy is unconstitutional it should also be apparent that the majority of elected officials along with the president of the US enacted the policy and was singed into law. The campus should endorse the law of the land since they teach law. If the gay lawmakers in congress didn’t request Supreme Court reviews then it is apparent they found it within the constitution or the authority of the support of the republic to do so. Why would a university be allowed which law to support even if they are a law school, under what authority?
4. I see the violation of free speech to be against the learning institution and not the recruiters. A learning institution should offer all points of view on an issue and allow the students to use their judgment to decide right
Doclotus and OlSarge, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if both of you would see colleges preventing recruiters from recruiting on campus as a violation of the First Amendement. As I said correct me if I'm wrong. But if this is the case, you'd both be incorrect. A private university has every right in the world not to allow the military on campus, it's private property, they can invite and kick out anyone. More importantly though, a private university can't violate the Constitution, it's legally impossible. The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, forbids Congress from abridging free speech, private entities can do it all they want.
CP
CP
CP is correct- if they didn't accept the funds, they could do whatever they wanted within certain parameters.
This same argument is very close to the old Citadel argument when it was all male.
They were perfectly legal to exclude females AS LONG AS they didn't accept federal funds, and since they couldn't survive without those federal funds (IMO, they should have allowed it to close) they eventually were forced to allow women.
This same argument is very close to the old Citadel argument when it was all male.
They were perfectly legal to exclude females AS LONG AS they didn't accept federal funds, and since they couldn't survive without those federal funds (IMO, they should have allowed it to close) they eventually were forced to allow women.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Jun 7 2005, 06:35 PM)
A private university has every right in the world not to allow the military on campus, it's private property, they can invite and kick out anyone.
I concur with CP. I simply think taxpayer funds shouldn’t support any form of the private sector in conflict with the lawful unchallenged enacted law or policy. If a private sector organization disagrees with the representative government then it shouldn’t be supported by taxes. To me it stands as clear as the church and state issue, if the church can’t receive government funding without complying with all enacted laws in force then neither should a private sector organization.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jun 4 2005, 01:09 PM)
I disagree with the position that military recruiters are engaging in political speech -- which is also why I disagree with the university's claims. The military recruiters are doing exactly the same thing that commercial law firm recruiters are doing: recruiting candidates for jobs. This is commercial speech and so, while the military recruiters have no First Amendment claims to engage in that activity, neither do the universities have First Amendment claims to stop them.
I think this is subject to interpretation, although I'll admit that your interpretation is probably more common. I believe the military, as an agent of the government, has a unique status when it comes to speech/recruitment. Part of that relates to the requirement that males over the age of 18 (personally I think females should as well) register with selective service (aka, the draft). However, for the sake of argument, I'll accept your position that this is commercial speech.
Commercial speech does have some degree of First protection, just not as vigorous as political speech. The test to determine if a restriction doesn't violate the First Amendment is known as the Central Hudson Test.
QUOTE
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of N.Y., 477 U.S. 557, 564-65 (1980). The court goes on to apply a four part analysis to advertising restrictions:
1. Determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
2. Determine whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial.
3. If both inquiries yield positive answers, determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and finally,
4. Determine whether it is more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
1. Determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.
2. Determine whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial.
3. If both inquiries yield positive answers, determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and finally,
4. Determine whether it is more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
In Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972), First Amendment was stated to be the source of an individual’s “right to receive information and ideas.” While conventional interpretation of that precedent is in judgement as to the government preventing receipt of those ideas, I believe the reverse to be true as it relates to the governments ability to exchange those ideas, especially in a college setting.
However, I wholly disagree with the argument that permitting recruiters on campus implies complete agreement or endorsement of the policies of the government/military. Allowing Ron Paul to speak on campus does not imply that the university has now adopted or endorsed a libertarian view of government.
If you accept the transition to commercial speech then this would be no different than any commercial firm being allowed to advertise there.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Jun 7 2005, 06:35 PM)
Doclotus and OlSarge, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me as if both of you would see colleges preventing recruiters from recruiting on campus as a violation of the First Amendement. As I said correct me if I'm wrong. But if this is the case, you'd both be incorrect. A private university has every right in the world not to allow the military on campus, it's private property, they can invite and kick out anyone. More importantly though, a private university can't violate the Constitution, it's legally impossible. The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, forbids Congress from abridging free speech, private entities can do it all they want.
CP, I'll agree with you that private institutions may in fact be exempt. They do not function as agents of a government institutions and thus would not be subject to its prohibition on regulation. Public or state schools, however, act as government agents and thus would be subject to said First Amendment restrictions as a result of the 14th amendment. Admittedly the Solomon Amendment doesn't seem to distinguish between public and private schools so I'll agree its possible that this distinction may not be sufficient to pass muster.
Frankly, I think both parties are in the wrong here. I believe universities should provide access (at least public ones, though shame on private ones for not doing so). I experienced college as one of the purer places to encounter the "marketplace of ideas" and thus should be very careful when considering to restrict anyone from being able to speak, advertise, or advocate there. If someone wishes to ignore the speech of a recruiter, they very much have the right to not attend their events.
I also believe the government is wrong in tying what appears to be all Federal funding to the condition. Punishing a student (by witholding a Pell grant, for example) for what seems to be the political speech of a university administration is wrong. This also wreaks of coercion of speech which I'm not fond of either.
With all that being said, I expect that the SCOTUS will likely find for the government. /shrug
Doc
Questions for Debate:
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Absolutely. The schools are there to help their students – you don’t want to join the Army, don’t show up. There are those that do want to join the JAGC and should be allowed to enquire about the possibility.
Plus, there are non-military jobs that exist within DoD for lawyers.You can be a homosexual double amputee and apply for the myriad of legal jobs available in the Army.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Of course they do. It goes back to NSTAFL. It happens every day with the Federal Government. You want a Federal contract? You pay Davis-Bacon wages. You want Federal Highway money, you make you drinking age 21. You want Federal funding for your school? Then you allow our recruiters on. You want to drop the nuclear bomb, you say no federal aid to STUDENTS going to the university. That is where you hit them hard.
Currently, Solomon does not affect Pell grants and the like, but only direct aid to the Universities and Contracts.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
Not in the least bit. Regardless of the irrationality of the policy, it is Federal law. The school neither endorses nor rejects the policy, it just is. That is like the physics department being asked if they endorse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – it just is.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
That is a big no in my book, I think the court had it wrong on the freedom of speech angle. It is not coercive speech, but rather speech incident to conduct. Plus, congress has a the power of the purse and can control the use of the funds. It is if the congress would be required to pay for adverse speech, which it is not.
The 3d circuit got it wrong and I do not believe the Supremes will use Dale as the basis of its analysis. I think SCOTUS will focus on the Congress’ constitutional right and duty to decide how the money is spent.
These institutions have no right to Federal money. None. Zippo. The burden on the schools is so slight to receive them that I see this as being 9-0 reversing the 3d Circuit. I may eat my words, but I think it will be a slam-dunk.
Then again, I am a active duty JAG and think the schools are being stupid to deny students the opportunities for jobs so take that for what you will. I also think that the DADT policy is moronic and most soldiers would quickly get over any momentary discomfort. They know who is and who isn’t any way.
JW
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Absolutely. The schools are there to help their students – you don’t want to join the Army, don’t show up. There are those that do want to join the JAGC and should be allowed to enquire about the possibility.
Plus, there are non-military jobs that exist within DoD for lawyers.You can be a homosexual double amputee and apply for the myriad of legal jobs available in the Army.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Of course they do. It goes back to NSTAFL. It happens every day with the Federal Government. You want a Federal contract? You pay Davis-Bacon wages. You want Federal Highway money, you make you drinking age 21. You want Federal funding for your school? Then you allow our recruiters on. You want to drop the nuclear bomb, you say no federal aid to STUDENTS going to the university. That is where you hit them hard.
Currently, Solomon does not affect Pell grants and the like, but only direct aid to the Universities and Contracts.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
Not in the least bit. Regardless of the irrationality of the policy, it is Federal law. The school neither endorses nor rejects the policy, it just is. That is like the physics department being asked if they endorse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – it just is.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
That is a big no in my book, I think the court had it wrong on the freedom of speech angle. It is not coercive speech, but rather speech incident to conduct. Plus, congress has a the power of the purse and can control the use of the funds. It is if the congress would be required to pay for adverse speech, which it is not.
The 3d circuit got it wrong and I do not believe the Supremes will use Dale as the basis of its analysis. I think SCOTUS will focus on the Congress’ constitutional right and duty to decide how the money is spent.
These institutions have no right to Federal money. None. Zippo. The burden on the schools is so slight to receive them that I see this as being 9-0 reversing the 3d Circuit. I may eat my words, but I think it will be a slam-dunk.
Then again, I am a active duty JAG and think the schools are being stupid to deny students the opportunities for jobs so take that for what you will. I also think that the DADT policy is moronic and most soldiers would quickly get over any momentary discomfort. They know who is and who isn’t any way.
JW
Welcome back Jagwease! 
That's an excellent point about JAGC and legal jobs in the Army, I hadn't even thought of that. I agree about the SC likely having a near unanimous verdict on this, though the SCOTUS stunned me on Raich so anything is possible I guess.
That's an excellent point about JAGC and legal jobs in the Army, I hadn't even thought of that. I agree about the SC likely having a near unanimous verdict on this, though the SCOTUS stunned me on Raich so anything is possible I guess.
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Its private property, and its the schools decision who to let in on it.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
The federal government has a right to allocate its revenue however it wants to, but I am personally opposed to the withdrawal.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, but the school can decide not to associate with people they dont like/disagree with if they want to. That of course isnt a legal arguement...
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
No. Not funding someone because you disagree with their policys, is not a violation of the other persons freedom of speech.
Its private property, and its the schools decision who to let in on it.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
The federal government has a right to allocate its revenue however it wants to, but I am personally opposed to the withdrawal.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, but the school can decide not to associate with people they dont like/disagree with if they want to. That of course isnt a legal arguement...
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
No. Not funding someone because you disagree with their policys, is not a violation of the other persons freedom of speech.
(1) Should military recruiters have equal access to recruiting on law school campuses?
Unless it is a private school, it is certainly up to the school to decide. If it is a public school, receiving public funds from the government, then yes... they should have equal access.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Yes. If the school is prohibiting military recruiters because of government policy, the government certainly has the right to withdraw funding. The government is responsible for the military; the military has the "don't ask, don't tell" policy; the government is responsible for that policy -- it is government policy when it comes to the military.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
Not unless the school requires students to meet with the recruiters. The school has the right to protest in the manner it does... certainly. If the school feels that allowing military recruiters on campus is endorsement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, then by all means prohibit military recruiters from coming on campus. There are consequences for that action, however.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
If the Solomon Act made it illegal to deny military recruiters access to campuses, then yes... but it doesn't.
Unless it is a private school, it is certainly up to the school to decide. If it is a public school, receiving public funds from the government, then yes... they should have equal access.
(2) If schools deny access to military recruiters on campus does the federal government have the right to withdraw federal funding?
Yes. If the school is prohibiting military recruiters because of government policy, the government certainly has the right to withdraw funding. The government is responsible for the military; the military has the "don't ask, don't tell" policy; the government is responsible for that policy -- it is government policy when it comes to the military.
(3) Do you believe that a military recruiter's presence on campus sends the message that the school endorses the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
Not unless the school requires students to meet with the recruiters. The school has the right to protest in the manner it does... certainly. If the school feels that allowing military recruiters on campus is endorsement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, then by all means prohibit military recruiters from coming on campus. There are consequences for that action, however.
(4) Does the Solomon amendment violate the first amendment?
If the Solomon Act made it illegal to deny military recruiters access to campuses, then yes... but it doesn't.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.