ACTA's Must-Reads
« Not so intelligent administrative designs | Main | A rare real debate »
Protesters tell recruiters to kiss off
The Supreme Court will soon decide whether colleges and universities may bar military recruiters while still receiving federal funding, and in anticipation of that event, students across the country are staging increasingly strident protests. There was the one-man protest at George Mason that became a scuffle between protester and recruiter and resulted in the arrest of the protester (the ACLU is now defending him against charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct); there was the Stanford protest in which JAG recruitment was disrupted while a dean delivered a speech about why the military should not be allowed to recruit on campus; there was the Holyoke Community College protest that ended in a brawl. This week, UC Santa Cruz became the scene of what must be the most "in your face" anti-military protest yet: a "queer kiss-in" to stage a graphic and unforgettable objection to the military's "don't ask-don't tell" policy. For the kiss-in, same-sex activist couples blocked access to recruiters by engaging in erotic embraces in front of their tables (pictures here). The protest took place peacefully, and while many got kissed, no one got hurt.
Meanwhile, Harvard--which reluctantly agreed to allow recruiters on campus this fall after the Pentagon warned the university it would lose hundreds of millions in federal funding if it did not--appears to be taking a more sophisticated and responsible approach to the debate about military recruiting on campus. While other campuses seem to be registering their awareness of the upcoming Supreme Court decision simplistically and confrontationally--with noisy agitations and staged agitprop--Harvard is attempting to get the issue aired in all its astounding complexity. For example, two law professors who hold opposing views on the validity of the Solomon Amendment recently held a public debate at the law school:
Kent Greenfield, a professor at Boston College Law School, joined John C. Eastman, a professor at Chapman University School of Law for a debate in Pound Hall sponsored by the HLS Federalist Society.[...]
Greenfield, who is also president of FAIR--a coalition of over 30 law schools and other institutions--reiterated his group's contention yesterday that the Solomon Amendment violates the Law School's right to free speech and association.
"In effect, the Solomon Amendment is one of the most aggressive attempts on the part of Congress to restrict the exercise of Constitutional rights," Greenfield told the packed room of nearly 100 people.
Eastman, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in July supporting the Solomon Amendment, called the dispute an issue of "fundamental moral principle." He countered the arguments of a friend-of-the-court brief filed by a group of 40 HLS professors, calling their argument against the Solomon Amendment "too clever by half."
He added that a "compelling argument" could be made that the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy--which prohibits gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military--only discriminates against homosexual behavior, not specifically a gay person's identity.
"There is a serious argument to be made that this is not invidious discrimination going on at all," he said. "That distinctions based on the conduct people choose to engage in is not the same as discrimination based on the color of one's skin."
Eastman added that he thought the government, and therefore, the armed services, should be considered a unique employer at the Law School because it provides Harvard with more than $400 million in grants each year.
"Harvard is not being forced to accept that grant...it's not compelled speech. But if they take that grant with that condition, they are obligated to that condition," he said.
Greenfield responded to Eastman's argument with a list of possible conditions he thought the government might freely attach to grants if it were given free rein.
"So what's the next law likely to be?" he asked. "A condition on your student loan that says that you are not to protest on the Iraq War during your time in school. Or a welfare benefit conditioned on your wearing a 'W'button?"
In a question-and-answer session, Greenfield addressed concerns that overturning the Solomon Amendment could nullify other government statutes, including Title IX.
"In this case, law schools are the ones that are fighting against discrimination and the government is the one that is forcing us to be a conduit for discrimination," he said. "It would be a difficult doctrinal move to then say if we win, then it's a violation of the First Amendment any time any institution wants to disagree with a government restriction."
Marches and placards and shouted slogans and kiss-ins are all very well. But they are, finally, anti-intellectual gamesmanship that cheapen the issues they pretend to defend. In the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR, such tactics do nothing whatsoever to enlighten, illuminate, complicate, clarify, or persuade. More schools should follow Harvard's example.
Posted by acta online at October 23, 2005 08:22 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/65
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Protesters tell recruiters to kiss off:
» diploma maturita from diploma maturita
diploma maturita [Read More]
Tracked on January 25, 2007 10:58 AM
Comments
Let us go through a little drill. Working for large company doing business with government and comes under the requirements of Affirmative Action --CFR-- Code of Federal Regulations Pertaining to ESA; Title 41-- Public Contracts and Property Management; Chapter 60-- Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity, Department of Labor. Opportunity to participate in an execute training program and or participate in extra high potential future executive program were not offered to you but granted to other members of different protected classes . Many of the participants were coming to you for answers, but you were not chosen. You are considered a protected class. These opportunities are being denied to you and others in your protected class. You go to the department of labor and read the following.
In order for these action-oriented programs to be
effective, the contractor must ensure that they consist of more than
following the same procedures which have previously produced inadequate
results. Furthermore, a contractor must demonstrate that it has made
good faith efforts to remove identified barriers, expand employment
opportunities, and produce measurable results.
(d) Internal audit and reporting system. The contractor must
develop and implement an auditing system that periodically measures the
effectiveness of its total affirmative action program. The actions
listed below are key to a successful affirmative action program:
(1) Monitor records of all personnel activity, including referrals,
placements, transfers, promotions, terminations, and compensation, at
all levels to ensure the nondiscriminatory policy is carried out;
(2) Require internal reporting on a scheduled basis as to the
degree to which equal employment opportunity and organizational
objectives are attained;
(3) Review report results with all levels of management; and
(4) Advise top management of program effectiveness and submit
recommendations to improve unsatisfactory performance.
Then you read further
Audit and reporting system. (1) The contractor shall design and
implement an audit and reporting system that will:
(i) Measure the effectiveness of the contractor's affirmative
action program;
(ii) Indicate any need for remedial action;
(iii) Determine the degree to which the contractor's objectives
have been attained;
(iv) Determine whether known protected classes have had the opportunity to participate in all
company sponsored educational, training, recreational and social
activities; and
(v) Measure the contractor's compliance with the affirmative action
program's specific obligations.
You file a complaint with the Department of Labor OFCCP.
Here is what will happen ? (1) Compliance review. A comprehensive analysis and evaluation of
the hiring and employment practices of the contractor, the written
affirmative action program, and the results of the affirmative action
efforts undertaken by the contractor. A compliance review may proceed
in three stages:
(i) A desk audit of the written affirmative action program and
supporting documentation to determine whether all elements required by
the regulations in this part are included, whether the affirmative
action program meets agency standards of reasonableness, and whether
the affirmative action program and supporting documentation satisfy
agency standards of acceptability. The desk audit is conducted at OFCCP
offices;
There is just one major problem ---The checking for an audit and reporting system is not in the desk audit manual for veterans but in there for all other protected classes.
The report would come back as being in compliant. Surprise Surprise! Congress will not investigate OFCCP because it would look bad for reelection. No one has the courage to question what questionable practices are going one. The industries could be creative if the employee asked about the absence of the audit and reporting system and say they have passed all audits and therefore it is not needed.
We ask about ethics in business and government.
If for the next ten years nothing happens or is implemented the large majority of veterans will be out of the work force, dead or homeless. What few are left can easily be denied opportunity with full government backing.
Posted by: dave panel at September 1, 2006 09:51 AM