CNN Story by way of the AP





Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.

Will this clash with the recent San Francisco decision to try and keep military recruiters out of high schools and colleges?

Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.
Yes, although I'm a bit surprised that it was unanimous. I would have figured 1-3 opposing.

Will this clash with the recent San Francisco decision to try and keep military recruiters out of high schools and colleges?
I'm not familiar with the details of the San Francisco decision, but on the face of it, San Fran is hosed.

This seems like a pretty open-and-shut case. The problem with taking Federal money is that, within reason, you have to play by the government's rules. If the Federal government had tried to force colleges into some sort of "gag rule" -- if they had forbidden the universities from showing disapproval of military recruiters -- a good case could have been made that this policy would have been unconstitutional. This is not the case, so the colleges have to grin and bear it.

I hope that our institutes of higher education make a strong effort to provide young people with opportunities other than military service. There will always be those who choose such a path, of course, and I wish them well; but I would join in on any peaceful effort to discourage it.

More importantly, law schools seem to forget that American dominance in the 21st century is not due to the brilliant superiority of said schools, but rather to the more mundane fact of military fiat which the US currently enjoys. Erode US military supremacy, and you erode US dominance in every other area as well. Americans are happy to reap the benefits of our military dominance, but ashamed of it as well. The rest of the world is frustrated and annoyed by it, but unwilling to spend the money on their military to become a threat. Of course, it helps that Russia tried that and lost. Conflict will never die. It will only move to higher and higher scales of destruction.

Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.

Will this clash with the recent San Francisco decision to try and keep military recruiters out of high schools and colleges?

[/quote]

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. As a former military recruiter I attended many community college career fairs. I laid out my displays and paraphenalia like any other representative. Young people who were qualified were able to look and talk to me and then move on, without coercion. The military is voluntary so we should be able to present our "companies" like any other enterprise. If I was recruiting college students though, law school is the last place I'd look for candidates. The typical law student would not meet my standards of a good military man. I mean ambulance chasers and people who are going to get rich defending drunk drivers and child molesters, yuck.

I recruited in a solidly patriotic area of North Carolina, so I can't relate to what San Francisco has legislated in its schools. I believe that George Bush should de-annex San Francisco, Seattle and any other areas that refuse access to recruiters. Once they are divested by the Federal government, they can provide their own security. That idiot who said we don't need a military, that the police can fight off any invaders must have some from San Francisco. But once again, the low kind of people that populate San Francisco would not meet my standards for military candidates, so good ridance.

I'm going to have to side with the Supreme Court on this one [even though Northeastern Law is one of the plaintiffs]. If you use Federal money, it is reasonable and seemingly legal to be forced to have recruiters on campus. No one is forcing a college student into the army, no one is preventing them from protesting it heavily [as they did in NU today]. There really isn't a legal argument I can come up with against the SCOTUS' ruling.

Yes, and I can't say that it shouldn't. How can a public high school, almost completely funded by taxpayers, deny the US military from GOING to a school. Again, I can't think of a legal argument against either.

CP

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.

Let the decision stand.

Will this clash with the recent San Francisco decision to try and keep military recruiters out of high schools and colleges?

I’ve noticed that recent TV recruitment ads have been geared more to persuading reluctant parents than the potential volunteer. Perhaps we should have “parental notification” on this issue. The schools, particularly the high schools, should notify parents when the recruiters are going to be there.

If military personnel are allowed on-campus, then in fairness, Cindy Sheehan and other war protestors should be welcomed with open arms.

Let the decision stand and let the conflict begin.

I believe that the schools already do so.

Ahhh, a refreshing brace of honesty. Cindy Sheehan and her ilk aren't really about peace and harmony, they're actually about recruiting people into the "progressive" (aka socialist) cult.

Anti-war protestors, or any other protestors, are only welcome on campus when they don't disrupt the learning environment, and even then most schools look dimly on outside protestors. Recruiters, military and otherwise, have a vested interest in not disrupting the learning environment. And yes, college recruiters, Americorps recruiters, corporate recruiters and even trade union recruiters all make appearances on public high school campuses. (Career Day anyone?)

But hey, there are lots of high schools where military recruiters can be banned. Of course, 90% of them are run by a class of organizations that is even more anathema to the Left than the military. Churches...

Ah, the conspiracy of it all--a hidden agenda.



If you will notice, I didn't say anything about Cindy Sheehan leading a war protest on a high school campus. You made this assumption.

If Cindy Sheehan made a speech in a high school auditorium, it would likely be no more disruptive to the learning process, possibly less, than a football pep rally.

The schools I worked in the last twelve years of my career tried to schedule pep rallies last period. Administrators realized that once kids were all hyped up, getting them settled down to the task of learning would take some time. This meant that they could go home all hyper and parents had to deal with it.

Yet I still think you are wrong. I don't think administrators in Texas and some other red state schools would welcome Sheehan even as an assembly speaker. Even as an assembly speaker, Sheehan or a surrogate, would create some tension and conflict, but that happens in the marketplace of ideas.



Three points:

1. What statistics can you provide to measure the prevalence and intensity of this alleged hatred?

2. If Congress ever passes the vouchers, that some conservatives are demanding, will this nullify a private schools's right to ban military recruiters?

3. I can't speak for all "leftists," or whatever invective you choose to use, but I don't hate churches, or for that matter the military. I drove by several churches on the way to the coffee shop today, as I do everyday. I didn't get bent out of shape and start saying under my breath "there's a church. I hate that thing." In fact, I probably wouldn't have noticed them at all, if had you not brought the subject up.

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.
I agree with the decision. Public schools are de facto government schools. They are open to other whims of governmental policy and the aims of whatever administration is in power. I see no reason why military recruiters should not be allowed on school grounds to give information to students.
I can find no logical opposition to the principle of free speech regarding military on a campus. Colleges at least, are fairly renowned for inviting speakers who are anti-war/military/Bush/conservative. If anything, opposing recruiters is stifling free speech.

Will this clash with the recent San Francisco decision to try and keep military recruiters out of high schools and colleges?
School administrators and parents with political agendas in opposition to current policies or fundamental opposition to the military will continue to fight this decision, and I have no problem with them trying to make their voice heard, I simply think that they will be defeated at every turn. I understand those who feel that the military's homosexual conduct policy is at odds with other governmental non-discrimination policies, but I believe that they fail to understand certain ramifications of their wishes.

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.

I do agree with the decision for many of the same reasons as Dontreadonme. Allowing military recruiters on campus while you are receiving federal funding seems like a logical coexistance. The students and faculty have a right to protest the military and if they feel so inclined, they should. But to deny the military on campus altogether is wrong as it stifles public debate and free speech.

Will this clash with the recent San Francisco decision to try and keep military recruiters out of high schools and colleges?

It doesn't look like there will be much clashing since the SCOTUS has the final say on such matters and have made their decision.

I don't really see the problem that people have with the military recruiters. The military is a volunteer service where the people want to be a part of it. Nobody is forced in any way shape or form. Some say that people are coerced into joining...but how is that any different from any product or service that is sold to us? The bottom line is that if you disagree with the military's policy on homosexuals or with violence altogether...just don't join. But you don't have the right to deny others the opportunity to join if they so choose.

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.
Though they have interpreted the law correctly, I do not agree with the law. They have done their job correctly, and that is all they should have done.

Certainly, there are limitations that a government-funded school must abide by, but the necessity of tying the condition to the funding makes it appear more like bribery. If a school is locally funded, it must still follow along with certain restrictions, but if it gets even a dollar from the federal government, the feds can impose all kinds of rules which it otherwise has no constitutional right to impose.

For example, if a law school finds that it would do their students a great service by allowing certain organizations to present information based solely upon who they felt would best utilize the skills of their students, then I see no reason to limit that. The only excuse comes from a larger organization (the federal government) using its vast resources to bribe its way into additional advertising venues in order to perpetuate its power.

They tax us to death, and this is what they do with the money, twisting arms to extend the propaganda. Am I the only one who finds any moral conflict here?

Then they shouldn't take the dollar. As I already noted, there are thousands of schools in this country that don't take the dollar.

Well, I might see a moral conflict if we were talking about the government forcing the law schools to take the money, but they aren't. There is certainly a case to be made for moral conflict if the Federal gov't were forcing the schools to allow Americorps recruiters, or National Endowment for the Arts recruiters, both Federal organizations that have a very dubious Constitutional basis, but the simple fact is this: the military has a clear and indisputable Constitutional authorization. Seeing to it that the services are properly manned is a legitimate gov't function, and not, as you seem to think, "propaganda." The only moral conflict lies in the ivory tower notion that one has a right to the use of the public purse in order to advance causes that are contrary to the public weal. Yeah, the law schools are high minded and principled, but clearly their principles have a price, and its a pretty cheap one at that.

I guess this is where we differ in opinion on the government's role in education. I believe that the federal government should fund education without stipulations beyond the limitations already provided by the constitution. I believe that the educators should run the schools, that they would have the best judgement on what their students might benefit from without yielding to any particular agenda as dictated by one of their contributors. Providing for the means of a proper education is a benefit to us all, but unnecessary laws and regulations are a burden to us all.

Ummm.... this is insinuating that the students at said colleges aren't bright enough to make informed decisions on their own?? That's insulting to the men and women that have made the "well informed" decision to go to college.

I believe that if you take money from the tax paying American public, that allowing a recruiter simply to spend time on your campus or for your school to engage in related activities isn't too far out of line.

The reality is that thousands of campuses have recruiters on their campuses, of which only a very small percentage of students join the military. NONE of which are conscripted or tricked into anything more than the students were tricked into spending thousands of dollars on a liberal arts degree! lol (ok, that's just a joke...)

Frankly, the funny thing to me is that many schools want to instill the notion of higher learning and open-minded thinking upon their students, but the idea of the kids turning into soldiers is appalling?!?!?!

It's an interesting notion, that a professor of higher learning would want to hinder the involvement of their students in viewing the world as it really is. Then again, not really... how many Professors have actual real-world experience!?!?!?! I'd venture to state that the vast majority of our nation's professors are actually functions of regurgitating information written by someone else. How many have had private-sector jobs, traveled the world, or teach ideas learned through experience? I'd have to say that in my experience that these are the exception as opposed to the rule...The military, especially during war time, teaches lessons that no students would ever learn in a classroom or out of a book that another man had written. Often times the military can teach the discipline and self-confidence that no student would've gotten in Psych 101, and in my experience, students that have military experience are often more likely to succeed (and to pay the tuition due to GI Bill or Guard exemption!). What institution doesn't want to increase it's graduation rate???

What are the schools afraid of??? If they're recruiting the best and the brightest, where better to find good recruits to defend our nation?

On the other hand, isn't it insulting to the educators when they are denied the ability to make the decision of who to let on the campus? Isn't it further insulting to the military if they cannot justify their presence on their own merits, but rather on the funding provided by the federation?

Actually I think it is insulting to the students to have professors that seem to be unable to effectively challenge the military so that they resort to banning freedom of speech. What are they afraid of, somebody that might challenge their closely held beliefs?

Of course SCOTUS had to uphold college military recruiting law. The federal governments primary responsibility is national defense, not education. Personally I think that all federal aid to these colleges and universities should be totally ended,

In addition to security, it is my opinion that the government should also be responsible for ensuring our freedom, or else it would surely take it away. A proper education is necessary for a society to remain free. A naive people would not have the capacity to make the best decisions.

Therefore, I believe that a publicly funded education system is essential to a free society, and any unnecessary regulations tied to that funding is an opposition to the freedom it is meant to secure. Requiring military recruiters be permitted on school grounds neither improves nor diminishes the educational value of the institution, and therefore there is no purpose for tying the requirement to the funding.

If this was a matter of free speech, the law would be unnecessary.

Isn't is odd that publicly funded education was not necessary for the Founding Fathers to determine that their inalienable rights were being abridged by the English government? Isn't it odd that many countries use publicly funded education to misinform their populace about what their government is doing?

I find it extremely irritating when one justifies public education by claiming that by providing this service the government is furthering freedom. While this might be the case, it is just as easy (in fact, easier) to make the case that government funded education robs the student of freedom because the state has an interest in limiting certain types of information. While it may or may not be true in public American education today (that point is in itself debateable), it is easy to point to countries that use public education to keep their citizenry ill-informed.

The government does not "secure" freedom, it can only take it away. That is why a limited government, with limited powers, is preferable to an all encompassing one. Funny, because that is what the Founders envisioned.

Do you agree with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court? Why or why not.

Providing for a military is a clearly enumerated power of Congress. Allowing the government's point of view to be heard in public schools is not even arguable. Allowing it to be heard in private schools receiving public funds is also not arguable: if the institution receives federal funds, those federal funds have strings attached. Private schools are free to opt out of these funds and set their own agenda. If they do not, then the government is entitled to have its view heard.