Yale Can Block Military Recruiters

[jhain]

not sure this is LBN- GOOD news , tho:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_yale_020305,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

Yale Can Block Military Recruiters
Associated Press
February 3, 2005

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A federal judge has ruled that Yale Law School can block military recruiters from campus without fear of losing federal funding.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall ruled Monday that a federal law requiring universities to let recruiters on campus violates the school's constitutional right to free speech.

School policy requires all recruiters to sign a nondiscrimination pledge, which the Pentagon has not done in light of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning open homosexuality. Defense officials argued that federal law requires Yale to allow recruiters on campus even without signing the pledge.

With the government threatening to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Yale faculty members sued the Department of Defense last year.


<MORE>

[Pam-Moby]

1. Yes and that is wonderful news. I just hope that it is not overturned.

[Kolesar]

2. *-hole's Alma Mater, too ... eom

[Ian David]

4. Churches: Please see "Solomon Act" before accepting faith-based money

What the colleges are going through with recruiters now, is what churches will go through in 20 years if they accept faith-based money.

[bigtree]

3. So this occured in response . . .

Congress Passes Resolution Supporting Military's Discrimination in Recruiting

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=42510

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- By a vote of 327 to 84, the House of Representatives today passed a "Sense of Congress" resolution opposing a 3rd Circuit court decision striking down the so-called Solomon Amendment.

In November the 3rd Circuit ruled that Solomon, a law which forced universities to violate non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation by allowing military recruiters on- campus access to students, was unconstitutional. The court found that the law infringed on the free speech rights of law schools that had sought to enforce their non-discrimination policies. Those policies, the schools argued, compelled them to prevent employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from recruiting on campus. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 25 law schools and universities, and supported by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

Today's resolution states that "it is the sense of Congress that the executive branch should continue to pursue" an appeal of the 3rd Circuit decision. The resolution is legally non-binding.

"Today's so-called 'Sense of Congress' makes no sense at all," said Sharra E. Greer, Director of Law & Policy for SLDN. "The military certainly has the right -- and the responsibility -- to recruit the best and brightest, but the best and brightest include lesbian, gay and bisexual students, too. That's exactly why it should abandon 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' If Congress were truly concerned about national security, it would focus its attention on the talents of the nearly ten thousand lesbian, gay and bisexual service members who have been fired because of their sexual orientation. It is the military's ban, and not the 3rd Circuit's decision, which is contrary to our national security interests."

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), in opposing today's resolution, said that "(W)e must support our troops in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and with respect for civil rights and fundamental freedoms that are the rubric of this nation." Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) also opposed the resolution, stating that "We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources for winning the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." Baldwin went on to ask, "(W)hen will we have the debate about the harm caused by excluding many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our military simply because they are gay or lesbian?"

For more information, visit http://www.sldn.org .

[cattleman22]

5. How can a university, or a corporation or any non individual person

have a right to free speech?

[qazplm]

6. again

and I realize I will get flamed for this, with colleges at least still being somewhat more liberal than the general public and IVY League colleges like Yale still fitting that bill, does it really make sense to bar military recruiters from college campuses which might at least in theory provide a moderating liberal influence with a few of the recruits from these schools?

In other words, what will end up happening if taken to the extreme is that liberal schools will bar the military, while more conservative schools wont, and a military officer corps that is already strongly conservative (which as one of the few liberal army officers is a daily annoyance believe me) will only get moreso.

I understand principle and all, but seems to me that instead of banning them completely their visits should be used as a rallying point to address issues like discrimination.

And it will allow those of moderate or even liberal mindset who are still for various reasons considering the military (I was already obligated since 1996 to be in until at least 2006 (long story) so this doesnt really even include me) to have access and maybe help moderate the officer corps a bit.

Goodness knows it NEEDS moderation!