No effect on academic freedom whatsoever

I wish that just for once, academics could find it in themselves to be honest. There is no effect in this decision on academic freedom whatsoever: The schools are perfectly free to stand by their principles to bar military recruiters, if in fact they actually honor those principles. Mark my words: They will not, because the principles they proclaimed motivated them in this bogus litigation were an obvious sham: Even Harvard gladly accepted millions from Saudis who subject gays to summary execution. This was about whining about the military, and had nothing to do with concern for gays or DADT. The schools were properly smacked down for damned bad legal thinking and infantile posturing.

JBM, at 6:40 am EST on March 9, 2006

Hypocrisy on both sides

JBM, I wish people would stop referring to this as a “smacking.” First of all, courts decided legal decisions every day. Does the loser go away from it say, “Oh, I was smacked?” No. Even in politically-charged issues, people simply regroup. But, I guess since everyone really wants to join the military, the testosterone came out in this one. Most of the huffing and puffing comes from academics who think it was a “smacking” that never served, never would serve, and quite frankly, look down upon most servicemembers. Even JAG doesn’t pay that much, and it isn’t regarded as a path to “greatness.” (Though it does provide solid training, it probably won’t get you a Supreme Court clerkship.)

Second, most people seem to have no idea regarding what the court actually said. It isn’t that long a decision. Yes over half of the academics I have spoken to seem to think it relied on the spending clause.

Third, Since homosexuals enjoy some protection in the military, by virtue of Lawrence, Marcum (and their interpretation in the service courts of appeal) of the miniscule number of law students from “top tier” law schools that wish to join the military and happen to be gay, none of them will face a court martial, unless they do something that would have been prohibited for a straight person. (Which, to me, was quite strange: a military recruiter – and the “recruiters” at law schools are different than the ones in the storefronts — could honestly state that their institution does not discriminate against homosexuals.) Personally, I think that many professors should be encouraging students. The solid training, combined with an environment in most services that is free from racial or sexual discrimination is a good place for someone to start their career. All a homosexual needs to do is keep his sexual activity off campus. Under my reading of the caselaw, he doesn’t even need to keep it a secret.

Finally, The services do not use law school interviews the way firms do. Indeed, a student that is at a law school which is visited by a recruiter is not situated in a better or worse way than any other student.

Larry88, at 7:10 am EST on March 9, 2006

public opinion is what you want it to be

RAS, Two points: Believe it or not, no matter what positions a law school or a professor takes, people will always want their kids to be lawyers. It will pretty much be a cold day in hell before people stop wanting their kids to go to good schools just because they might learn “liberal” ideas. Few people know exactly what military lawyers do, so it is difficult to say that the masses have any idea regarding any change in actual military readiness that would occur if the military did rely on campus recruiting. Secondly, I know you are a good American (regardless of whether you served), and I know that as a good American you read the opinion. As you know from reading the opinion, the court did not rely on the spending clause, so, in fact, as a constitutional matter there actually is no quid pro quo. (As a statutory matter, one can make such a case, however.)

I should clarify my earlier statement. Currently there are no former officers serving as clerks to Supreme Court justices. However, former officers do serve as 1) the clerk of the Supreme Court; and 2) various “career” positions at the Supreme Court. They do good work, and they are fine lawyers, but this is not what law professors at real schools have in mind for most of their students.

Larry, at 7:50 am EST on March 9, 2006

About a donor

Ol’ Lar .. I hear ya, about parents and law school. In fact, I believe IHE has had several articles about how law school market is growing, for good or bad. From what I can tell, some of that are retiring lawyers who want to hand-off “the family business” to the kids (look at Sam Bernstein’s ads). Life will go on.

About the money matter, a quick tale: friend who has donated $100,000 to colleges, calls last week and asks “what the heck is going on with the Muslim cartoon thing?” Frankly, since the cartoons are all over the ‘Net, I wonder myself about the need to aggravate matters.

Friend questions what’s happening to his donations. This is how the money starts to dry up.

Hey — ja rule, as they say on KHOW.

R.A. Shaw, at 8:25 am EST on March 9, 2006

nothing scathing

The opinion was quite nuanced, and it properly left open a number of questions. It was no more or less scathing than any of the government’s defeats, and the questions asked (and by which justice) were not atypical. Since I read all Supreme Court cases, and most cases from circuit courts of appeal, some people pay me to be an expert on them. Parties take positions in court which will always be regarded as “sophistry” by the opposing party. Courts resolve such differences, and in the federal system there must be an act case or controversy. This is the way of the law. I can send you some books on it.

This is all quite silly. People that want to join JAG will join in regardless of whether they recruit. (In fact, an interview can be had by even people at lesser-ranked law schools by simply calling an SGA.) People that don’t want to join a JAG corps (the vast majority of law school students) won’t. Most law professors want nothing to do with a JAG corps, not for political reasons, but for career reasons. Life will go on. Homosexuals will join the military, and they will become gradually more open about it, as officers realize that Lawrence (and, by derivation, Marcum) is the law in the military.

Feudi, I really don’t see how you figure that this is an issue of whether a school decides to take money or not. The court did not rely on the spending clause.

Larry, at 9:10 am EST on March 9, 2006

There’s law, and then there’s policy

The fact that the Solomon decision was unanimous, with reliably liberal justices like Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer not dissenting from any aspect of Roberts’ opinion, indicates that the legal reasoning of FAIR (along with Bowen’s AAUP amicus brief) was decidedly without merit.

But just because the Solomon Amendment is legal doesn’t mean it’s good public policy, and those who oppose it will have to do so in the political arena, where, frankly, there’s not much likelihood of overturning it, times being what they are.

In 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in Bob Jones University v. U.S. that the Federal Government could deny tax-exempt status from the school on account of its ban on interracial dating. As deplorable as the school’s policy was, I thought at the time that those who cheered the decision would have cause to repent of the fact that the ruling established that the federal financial lever could be used if not to deny, but as least to powerfully influence, rights of association, speech, and religion. While the Jones decision did not play any direct role in the Solomon case, I can still hear its echoes.

jem, at 11:25 am EST on March 9, 2006

The Sky Is (not) Falling!

[sotto voce] When you’ve blown all credibility with a legal argument that gets soundly rejected even by the liberal justices, don’t re-double the bet.

The sky isn’t falling. Academic freedom isn’t imperiled. Law school job fairs are not how univerisities express themselves. Never have been. No one believes that the law schools vouch for the social practices of the potential employers. There are law firms with zero black partners and the law schools are falling all over themselves to get those firms to the school. There are left wing employers and right wing employers and “we ignore politics and focus on profits” employers, etc. It’s a *job fair* not a symposium or mission statement.

The author would have been wiser to adopt the other strategy we’re seeing post-smackdown: say “we knew we would lose but are proud to have made the argument.” That one has a veneer of dignity, but it raises the troubling question, “if that’s so, why’d you try to deceive me by arguing something you now say you knew was a loser?”

The irony here is that if FAIR had won, Title IX (which is far more “coercive” than the Solomon Act) should be seen as infringing on the rights of Bob Jones U. Now, that’s an argument with some weight behind it. I can’t imagine the political left (which includes me) would have been happy with that result.

bernardooboyle, at 11:40 am EST on March 9, 2006

Mr. Vandenburgh,Women do not serve in front line combat units in the Marines or Army. Of course many have and do serve with honor and do a fine job. But to say that women are not a distraction within a mostly (previously all) male unit is nonsense, in fact I’ll contend they would even be more of a ditraction than openly gay men. Don’t believe me? Check into the latest shipboard pregnacy rates in the Navy among other indicators. Not only should women never be allowed in combat units, but a good argument could be made that they should be excluded from direct-support units as well. (Remember the Jessica Lynch fiasco?) If we ever get into another total war (WWII was the last one we saw) or even an all out fourth-generation war, our enemy will make capuring women at or near the front a priority, because they know our efforts to protect and rescue them will reduce our fighting power.

Matt, at 8:45 am EST on March 10, 2006

Rumsfeld v. FAIR is fair

First of all, career events are held for the benefit of the institution’s students, not for the benefit of the faculty or administration. While most law school faculty and many law school students may object to the presence of military recruiters on campus, I find it hard to believe that 100% of any law school campus objects to their presence. Indeed, recruiters would not waste their time and energy trying to recruit at a place where no one is interested in their opportunities.

Secondly, allowing recruiters on campus does not force the faculty, administration or opposing students, to support the mission or recruiting criteria of the Department of Defense. They are free to publicize their objections both inside and outside the classroom. In fact, at a recent Job & Internship Fair that I coordinated at my University, I offered both our anti-war organization and our LGBT organization, the opportunity to staff tables and distribute their literature at the career event and in our career center. Through this arrangement, students interested in careers as military officers were able to talk to recruiters about their programs and opportunities and students, faculty, and community members opposed to the military are free to express their opposition. The law schools comprising “FAIR” are free to do the same.

Norman S. Stahl, Ph.D., Director, Career Services at A Public 4-Year, at 5:40 pm EST on March 14, 2006