Early this month, when the U. S. Supreme Court voted unanimously to allow military recruiters back on campus, it showed how difficult it is becoming for academics to work their will outside of the Ivory Tower. But the court may have made the higher education establishment more determined to exercise greater control on campus.
The case brought forth to the Supreme Court deals with the perceived hostility of the military toward homosexuals. This hostility stems from the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, authorized by President Clinton. Tension mounted to new heights when 30 law schools, represented by FAIR (Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights) threatened a lawsuit in 2003 arguing that forcing military recruitment on campus was a violation of free speech. The only law school in the nation to file on behalf of the military was George Mason University in Virginia.
FAIR’s attorney, Joshua Rosenkranz, told the Austin Chronicle, “If the First Amendment protects the right of bigots to discriminate against gays, then certainly it protects the right of academic institutions to decline to associate with bigots.”
The law, called the Solomon Amendment, gives military recruiters the same access to students and campuses as other employers. The law schools claim that they should not have to grant this access because the military violates the schools’ non-discrimination policy on sexual orientation. They also maintain that the schools should be able to passively voice their opinion on the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by denying the military access to the school.
The nation’s highest court found these arguments to be faulty. “Although Congress has broad authority to legislate on matters of military recruiting, it nonetheless chose to secure campus access for military recruiters indirectly, through its Spending Clause Power,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The Solomon Amendment gives universities a choice: Either allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forego certain federal funds.”
“Congress’ decision to proceed indirectly does not reduce the deference given to Congress in the area of military affairs.”
He noted that schools that do not agree with the policies of the military are not obligated to receive the federal funds, if they chose to ban military recruitment. “As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech,” Justice Roberts wrote. “It affects what law schools must do- afford equal access to military recruiters—not what they may or may not say.”
Even if not for these new appointees to the court, it is clear that liberal and conservative judges alike agree on the need to allow the military to recruit on campus. The actions taken by these law schools are just another example of the leftist fringe on campus taking a departure from mainstream society.
Rosemarie Capozzi is an intern at Accuracy in Academia. Be sure to join Accuracy in Academia on March 30, 2006 from 9:00 AM until 1:00 PM for AIA’s conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, D. C. on The Ivory Tower’s War on the U. S. Military.
