ACTA's Must-Reads
« Stay tuned | Main | SCOTUS on Solomon »
ACTA on Rumsfeld v FAIR
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rumsfeld v. FAIR today as everyone from The Wall Street Journal to the ACLU weighed in on whether the government should have the right to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities that bar military recruiters. A notable staff editorial from the Washington Post argues that the Solomon Amendment is at once unfair and entirely legal:
The First Amendment is not an entitlement program that requires that such money come with no strings attached. The law (known as the Solomon Amendment, after the late New York Republican representative Gerald B.H. Solomon) does not require that universities promote the policy: They remain free to denounce it. The law simply demands that they not frustrate military recruitment while opening their bank accounts to large grants.As a moral matter, however, the government is defending the indefensible -- a fact that the litigation, which necessarily focuses on the legalities, may tend to obscure. The major problem with "don't ask, don't tell" is not its effect on the First Amendment rights of law schools. Rather, it's that the military continues to expel patriotic Americans who want to serve their country at a time when it needs all hands to fight two wars.
And at the American Enterprise Online, ACTA president Anne D. Neal argues that higher education officials have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that schools do not interfere with students' ability to decide for themselves whether they want to pursue a military career:
...whether the Court decides yea or nay--a decision it will not likely reach for many months--it's time for trustees to step up to the plate and do what fiduciaries are supposed to do: act in the best interests of students and the public. It defies logic how a university like Yale can claim it is educating its students when it is denying them basic information about possible careers in the defense of our country.Rather than hiding behind the faculty and administrators, trustees should guarantee students the right to learn about military careers. Indeed, to do otherwise allows the political activism of administrators to undermine the fundamental right of students to think for themselves and make their own decisions--including whether or not they support or oppose the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The essence of a university experience should be the free exchange of ideas and principled debate. But when it comes to military recruiters, it appears that too many of our colleges believe that there should be no debate--and no cost--to adhering to "principle."
Members of our military know all too well that principles are often protected at a great price. It's time for the academy to learn that lesson, as well. If they're going to accept government money with one hand, then they can't hold the door shut with the other.
Full reporting on today's events is still pending, but the Harvard Crimson is suggesting that the lead attorney for FAIR may have blown his clients' case this morning when he answered a question from Justice Breyer:
Breyer asked Rosenkranz: "Do you agree with the government that the statute as fairly interpreted is violated when schools issue rules uniformly applied to all employers that you can't come in if you have the discrimination against hiring gay people?""Yes, your honor," Rosenkranz replied.
So far, the Crimson reports, only Justice Souter appears to be sympathetic to FAIR's case.
Posted by acta online at December 6, 2005 06:18 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.goactablog.org/blog/mt-tb.cgi/83