http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_ ... recruiters

Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and their professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the campus visits are an effective military recruiting tool.

"A military recruiter's mere presence on campus does not violate a law school's right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter's message," he wrote.

Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.

The court's decision upholds a law that requires colleges that take federal money to accommodate recruiters.

Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court last fall, said there are other less drastic options for protesting the policy. "Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message," he wrote.

"Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students — not to become members of the school's expressive association," he wrote.

The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.

College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.

The court heard arguments in the case in December, and justices signaled then that they had little problem with the law.

Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but
Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued.

"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote.

The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.

I don't really have a problem with the ruling, but I do have a BIG problem with the law itself. I've always found it awful that the feds can practically force entities below them to do certain things on the threat of withdrawing funding, and this is no exception.

I agree.

That's why the federal government should do nothing but what is expressly written into the Constitution. There should be no federal level Department of Education.

i think that's a little extreme. there are some things that the states just arent equipped to handle, and i guarantee there are things that the federal govt does that yo uthink are good but which are not "expressly" in the constitution.

but aside frmo that, if the federal govt is giving funding, it has to be able to restrict the funding in some sense, whether its eligibility criteria or limits on use. you have to draw the line somewhere, so who is to say it can't be drawn at requiring allowing the military to recruit on campus?

i agree its not good that they can basically force those below them to do what they say, but i cant think of a system that is satisfactory which does not have this happen to some extent

Others have already thought of such a system that is satisfactory to them, but perhaps not to you. If the Federal government stopped funding state institutions, and left that to the states then they would have no justification to interfere with them. Going back to a system where the States wield greater power and have greater responsibility. I dig it, but many do not.

If we're going to leave education funding totally up to the states, I'd like to restrict immigration between the states. Because states like Mississippi and Alabama are going to seriously fuck some kids up, and I don't want all the hopelessly illiterate adults draining on North Carolina.

You can look at on one hand and see it as blackmail. But why should colleges just get federal money for existing? They are private institutions after all. If they want the money, I don't understand why it's such a problem to have recruiters on deck. Why object to a don't ask don't tell policy? It's not discriminatory in nature. Surely these people understand why homosexuals need to be discouraged from the military.

In that case, wouldn't the states with all the tax money like NY and CA just completely fuck over everyone else?

The great irony of these debates is that the small gov't states are the ones that are bigger drains on the system.

I've got no problem with that supreme court decision. The military is an essential gov't service and they have a right and an obligation to recruit. This is not like the gov't saying if you accept our money you can't allow abortions.

Use the federal money to fund free courses about what jerks military recruiters are.

But it happens all the time. For instance, if your great state wants to lower the drinking age to 18, the federal government can and will condition federal funding for transportation projects on your state not doing it. Call it blackmail or whatever, but the federal government often conditions receipt of funding on things it promotes.

Yep, I think I will call it blackmail.

That drinking law is another one I have a huge problem with.