The recent Supreme Court decision guaranteeing military recruiters easy access to college students it a terrible injustice, but should come as little surprise to anyone with their ear to the ground. The decision rides on the tails of No Child Left Behind (which allows military access to high schoolers) and the USA PATRIOT Act (which curtails civil rights).
This decision, which may look innocuous on the outside, has far reaching effects and is built on several trends and traditions of the US government.
Homophobia
The case was brought up by a coalition of law schools, citing their anti-discrimination clauses as reason to keep military recruiters off their campuses. The military enforces the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy, which excludes homosexuals from military service.
The law schools have rules stating that any employer looking to recruit on campus must be non-discriminatory in their hiring practices. Simple enough. The law schools looked at the military recruiters like any other employer. The military clearly failed the anti-discrimination test, and so the schools wanted to give them the boot.
However, the military was quick to recognize that we live in a post 9/11 world - meaning they are falling short of their recruitment goals. So the military had to start ramping up an aggressive campaign to bring in the young people (though not the gay ones) and has had to go to the Supreme Court to get the definitions of words like "equality" loosened a bit to allow for a homophobic agenda.
Extortion
The Supreme Court's decision was based on the foundation that schools that accept federal money must also accept military recruiters, and provide them with goods and services equal to that of other recruiters. This means in some cases the military must be given office supplies, office space, and the school must advertise with emails and flyers for the recruiters. All in the name of giving the military a fair shake.
The military now holds the use of federal money like a truncheon raised above the colleges. They believe it is right they use this power to coerce others to take on a homophobic stance. I imagine the next step is the threat of broken knee caps.
Judge Roberts asked several times why didn't the schools just give up the federal money to stop the flow of recruiters. Maybe because they want affordable tuition rates so that people other than the mega rich can have educations? Maybe they think education is something the federal government should be investing in? Maybe Roberts just doesn't know how budgets work, that the money must come from somewhere.
So federal dollars are what clears the way for recruiters. Does that mean schools without federal funding are save from recruiters, as Roberts implied? Nope. According to John Roberts, "Congress's power in this area is broad and sweeping and there is no dispute in this cases that it includes the authority to require campus access to military recruiters."
So even if a school does not accept any federal money, they can still be forced to host the anti-gay recruiters. No matter what, the military wins. And students lose.
Hypocrisy
Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court "[t]he United States makes available substantial federal funding that assists in the education of students, and in return seeks only the same opportunity to recruit those students that is extended to other employers."
However, the military is not looking for "only the same opportunity." They want special treatment to be able to stay outside the boundaries of the school's policies. They were being treated equally before. Based on the school's policy, they had every right to keep recruiters out.
If a blatantly racist group, say the KKK, had an opening for a summer internship, they would be denied a recruitment table as well, as stated by the school's anti-discrimination policy.
Hegemony or Equality
This case shows clear signs of a government beginning to amass and expand its power and influence over the people. What the Supreme Court is saying is that anywhere federal money goes, that any of the policies of even the most disparate government agencies hold sway. After all, it isn't the military that is giving money to the schools, it is the federal government. But that money paves the way for the military.
The implications of this are as far reaching as the federal dollars. What does this ruling hold in store for the rebuilding in New Orleans? Or for the countries who receive federal aid? If federal money is all that is needed as a pre-requisite for the military, where will they draw the line? Tax dollars pay for an incredible amount of public services - now every public place is susceptible to an aggressive military recruitment campaign.
This is troubling not only for the militarization of society, but because this ruling institutionalizes the specific policies of the military as well. The law school's issue with the recruiters is there anti-gay stance. By forcing the schools to allow them, the Court is forcing the schools to also accept and promote discrimination, simply because the military does. How soon before we begin seeing "Don't ask, Don't tell" public parks?
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex) chimed in, explaining that "this decision will ensure that the military will continue to be comprised of our nation's finest -- men and women who know how to defend our country in a manner consistent with our values and principles." By Cornyn's measure, gays will never rank among our "finest." They don't conform to our "values and principles." That is the new American hegemony.
Why the Interest
The military preys on the poor. It lies to them, makes empty promises, and ships them off to become fodder for roadside bombs in Iraq. It needs people less educated and pushed into desperate situations, looking for any type of work. That is why the Right enjoys periods of high unemployment and abortion bans. The more the poor have less options, the easier wars are to execute. And the more money those on top of the military-industrial complex are able to make.
This is why college students make good prey. They are the perfect age. The younger ones have little world experience or education, and the older ones face a mountain of debt. It is no accident tuition is always on the rise while federal aid is perpetually falling. College age students are eager to go out and see the world, to get away from where they grew up, and the military plays to that in every ad. Independence, responsibility, and helping the common good - that's what they promise. Unfortunately, they never deliver.
Students are also piled on with debt, enough to last a lifetime. Tuitions rise yearly at many schools, and federal money that would have gone to Pell grants is being diverted to Halliburton and their ilk. But students are also being targeted of by credit card companies. Young people are pursued by an aggressive consumer culture, and living on their own for the first time, are not known to be the most financially prudent bunch.
Upon graduation, students look for a secure career. The military is so desperate for soldiers that it won't let go of the ones it has, and will lower the bar for incoming enlistees. No other job market can claim that kind of record. Facing a withering economy on one side and a mountain of debt on the other, the military may look like the only option.
If students are going to be aggressively recruited, then we need to get just as aggressive in countering these voices. Whether that is by direct counter-recruitment, or anti-war protest, or offering peaceful alternatives, students need to take back the universities' conversation and show the country that this generation has the means to achieve a more livable future - one free from the shackles of imperialism.