| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Law Schools Learn Recruiting Lessons from Kindergarden |
| 2005-12-16 |
| Remember being a kid? There you were - standing firm and resolute in the kitchen - pleading with your parents to let you stay up past your bedtime. It simply wasn't fair! It even felt a bit tyrannical! "Who are these people to tell me where I am supposed to be and what I am supposed to do at this hour?!?" (Unbeknownst to you, you may have had a very strong equal rights case on your hands.) Begrudgingly, however, you eventually shut your yapper and went to bed. Why? Deep in your heart, you probably felt that it was for the best. And looking back - especially those of you who now have your own whiny children - you now know that to be true: Your parents got some peace and quiet and you got the rest you so desperately needed. Where are we going with this? Well, politics, in many ways, is a child's game: We must play well with our peers, pay attention and listen to others. So when considering the recent debate sparked by 36 law schools that argued in front of the Supreme Court that they should not lose federal funding if they choose not to allow U.S. military recruiters on campus, perhaps it's time that we remember the above childhood lesson: Sometimes, what's best for the greater good isn't perfect when looked at through a more narrow lens. The schools argue that losing funding over barring recruiters from campus would violate their First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and association because the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward homosexuals is discriminatory and they want nothing of the sort on their campuses. Technically speaking, these law schools are correct: "Don't ask, don't tell" discriminates against homosexuals. But we must see the forest through the trees. A half-century of American dominance as a superpower has led many to believe that our greatness is a given. But as our military falters, so, too, crumbles all that it hoists on its mighty shoulders. The lifeblood of that military is its troops and, as we find our military strained and overtasked - due to both Bush administration policies and for demographic trends well in place before 2000 - only the most foolish among us would prevent it from meeting target recruitment levels. Additionally, the military is frequently granted special rights, privileges and exemptions in numerous areas and its adoption of the legally shaky "don't ask, don't tell" policy is another example of an acceptable concession. But, for argument's sake, let's assume that our military had more enlistees than it could handle; the law school's case still falls flat. Let's again return to some childish lessons. If you want your allowance, there are a few simple rules that must be followed. As a child, you were given an allowance pending certain chores that you accomplished: taking out the trash, cleaning the dishes, putting away your clothes. Higher education institutions receive roughly $35 billion in federal assistance each year. No one is arguing that these 36 law schools can't do whatever they'd like on campus - determine which employers can recruit, choose which faculty members get hired, argue against government policy, determine course syllabi, pick which band gets to play first at Spring Fling, etc. But, as Chief Justice John Roberts told the schools eager to ban military recruiters, "You are perfectly free to do that, if you don't take the money." Government constantly demands certain obligations in exchange for funds and, when it comes to higher education, the federal government asks for very little in return for the not-so-little sum of $35 billion. The law school's case also carries with it a very slippery slope. Justice Antonin Scalia raised the salient point of whether these same schools should be allowed to ban recruiters if, say, they were recruiting for a war that university faculty disliked. And what do these schools say to the military's policy of keeping women out of combat? Isn't that discriminatory as well? Justice Stephen Breyer even posited that the law schools' argument could be extended to allow "the worst segregationists you can imagine" to keep blacks from campus. Lastly, let us not forget this childhood lesson: Education is the most important thing. What these law schools - raising lawyers, no less! - should keep in mind is that the greatness of the First Amendment is that it protects all speech ... high and lowbrow. And these law schools do a disservice to their students by not allowing a diverse group of voices, opinions and viewpoints on campus. The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy deserves a good, passionate debate. While on campus, recruiters should sit down and discuss their experiences with students. Students should ask lots of questions. Teachers should provide some legal context to the issue. What better learning experience is there? Colleges should not simply expose their students to the voices that they like best. A few side points: - The military should realize that, as society continues its evolution toward more inclusivism, any discriminatory policy - which military leaders argue increases troop morale - will ultimately backfire and both decrease morale and hurt troop recruitment. It should use this occasion to reassess its policies. - The law schools would better serve their purposes - and their students - by going straight to the heart of this issue and fighting the actual policy of "don't ask, don't tell," instead of fighting this secondary battle. Doing so would make this particular issue of military recruitment on campuses a moot point while simultaneously making the military a more inclusive place. In the end, this issue will undoubtedly leave some people very unhappy. So perhaps it is here that the best childhood lesson applies: Life isn't always fair. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #4 I heard some of the arguments before the Court the other day listening to National People's Radio in the car. The lawyer for the schools came off as a whiney child while one of the Justices (Roberts, iirc) kept asking short pointed questions like jabs to the nose. I was laughing out loud. To paraphrase the discussion: Roberts: If you don't like it, don't take the money. Lawyer: We want the money. We just don't want anyone telling us what to do. Besides, the Army sucks. Roberts: You can still say the Army sucks. Lawyer: Yeah, but no one will believe us. Roberts: That's because you took the money. ( laughter throughout courtroom ) |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-12-16 13:05 |
| #3 "Flaming.." It shows, Cyber Sarge. *grin* |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-12-16 12:30 |
| #2 The policy in place works very well and lends itself to the military culture. I spent twenty years in the Air Force and I can't remember a single time I had to announce or profess my sexual preference to my troops or to my supervisors (FYI, I am a flaming heterosexual). I am sure of only one person that was gay during my 20 years (because she told me) and there probably were others but I couldnât care less. I only cared that they did their job and did it well. Whatever they decided to do on their own time behind closed doors didnât concern me. To make a long story short (lol) the donât ask/donât tell works. I suspect the gay lobby wants is some protected status within the military and that is counter to military culture. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-12-16 10:26 |
| #1 The amazing thing is that the lawyers, the law schools themselves, seek to undermine the very basis of their existence, the law. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Powers of Congress stipulates - The Congress shall have Power⦠To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; Congress does this through Title 10 United States Code - Armed Forces. Subsection of which has these two punitive articles [Subtitle A, Part II, Chapter 47, Subchapter X]: Art. 125. Sodomy (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. And Art. 78. Accessory after the fact Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Article 78 is the lawful basis for âDonât ask, donât tellâ, because under military law unlike civilian law, if you know, you must tell. Itâs not policy. It is the law. Itâs Congressâ law. Its in that portion of the Constitution for a reason [look up Oliver Cromwell for background]. If the advocates want it changed, go to Congress. The last thing anyone wants, who has a decent understanding of history, is to separate the military from obeying the law of the people. The schools have accorded themselves in a manner of a two bit street hustler pushing a game of three card monty. There is no intellect here. There is just the cited immature I wahahna, I wahahna, I wahahna wrapped in the most egregious example of legal obscurantism |
| Posted by: Grinesing Slererong3182 2005-12-16 10:07 |