Daily Kos

Not The Solomon Amendment

Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:28:00 PM PDT

I was quite pleased with what I saw during the Democratic debate tonight. There were no cheap shots, there was a civil discussion of differences, and honesty that I had not seen from Senator Clinton. It was the Democratic candidates at their best. Theirs was a discussion about policy, not about a  $400 dollar haircut, who wore what, et cetera. The candidates held each other accountable for their records without descending into the nastiness of the previous debate. Unlike the Republicans, we have a field of candidates we can be proud of even if we do not agree with them.

Imagine my sadness, then, when they all spoke in a unified voice in support for the federal law requiring all college campuses to have an ROTC corps. That law is a scandal and the Solomon Amendment is that shameful law on steroids. Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all law school graduates and I would think they all would support law schools in their fight to stay clear of discriminatory practices. I know that I will face the wrath of the people who are devotees of unconditional love for the military, but right is right. Forcing campuses to be a recruiting ground for the military when those schools have policies that are contrary to military policies is plain wrong.

For those who do not know, most ABA accredited law schools have a strict non-discrimination policy for the use of law school facilities for recruiters. The rule is straight forward: Law school facilities are off limits to recruiters who have a history of discrimination or an explicit policy of discrimination. This is the standard for private and public sector employers. Law and medical schools have the greatest obligation to be committed to fair treatment for all citizens regardless of religious affiliation, sex, race, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Doctors and lawyers are often on the front lines of protecting the rights and lives of people who are reviled by the rest of us. I hate the fact that pedophiles breath the same air as decent people. But, I recognize their right to every legal protection enshrined in the Constitution. I am sure that there are doctors out there who have to hold their noses when they treat people who have committed a heinous act. In fact, army medics treat all people with injuries, friend or for. If any group of professionals is totally loyal to the ethics of their chosen profession it is these doctors, nurses, orderlies, and other medical support staff. I do not know if I could represent someone who wanted to blow my head off. Their professionalism should be an example to us all. Doctors and lawyers are beholden to principles that are larger than their individual beliefs and are legally and ethically bound not to substitute their personal feelings for those principles. A bill like the Solomon Amendment undermines that.

The Solomon Amendment was a response to law schools who said that they were willing to lose all federal funding for their refusal to permit the Judge Advocate General Corps to recruit on their campuses. Law schools view discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as being just as odious as discrimination based on race. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is discriminatory in that it singles out a group for dismissal based on sexual orientation. For law schools to allow such a group to use school facilities would amount to a stamp of approval of discrimination. That is the position law schools take and I think they have it right. When Republican zealots threatened to pull federal funding from those schools that did not allow the JAG Corps to use their facilities as sites for recruiting, the law schools refused to be strongarmed and told them they could take their money and shove it. Lawyers have a pretty bad reputation in this country, but I felt proud when law school alumni expressed almost universal outrage and pledged to donate money to make up and surpass the lost funding. Representative Solomon pulled a stunt that would have drawn disapproval even from a mafia boss: he used disproportionate and effective force to make law schools bend to his will lest everyone else around the law school get hurt. The Solomon Amendment says that any university with a law school that does not allow the JAG Corps to use law school facilities for recruitment would lose all federal funding. That would have devastated undergraduates who more and more have to rely on federal grants and loans to pay for a college education. Most hospitals are aligned with universities, so that would have implications for medical students, medical research, and patient access. Engineering schools, schools of international affairs, environmental academic programs, just to cite a few would have been defunded. Law schools did the right thing by filing a law suit and allowing the JAG Corps on their campuses so that other members of the university community would not get hurt.

I have witnessed first hand how the JAG Corps comes onto law school buildings with smug self-satisfaction. They have muscled their way there and they are clearly not wanted because they transgress the principles of our Constitution and the legal profession. Law students often have chilly relations with one another because we are competing with one another in a way that has implications for our entire careers. But we all came together to wear rainbow ribbons to support our gay classmates and send a message that we disapprove of the JAG Corps and the federal government's thuggish behavior.

I think that the mindless "support the troops" droning is the progenitor of Democratic approval for the Solomon Amendment and the mandatory ROTC presence. Schools should not discriminate against people who have military backgrounds or aspirations. But schools should not be forced to do the government's discrimination dirty work. That moment in the debate bothered me. It revealed how dangerous it is to chant "support the troops" without any consideration for the moral corner paints one in. "Support the troops" has come to mean unlimited resources, money, and uncritical approval for every action the military takes. Forcing law schools to deviate from the Constitutional principle that we are all equal under the law undermines one of the corner stones of the legal profession and demoralizes the student body.

Universities should have the right to keep military factions off their campuses. I wish the Democratic candidates had stood up for our universities. American universities have a wonderful tradition of openness and access that one cannot find in other countries. Our universities bring together people from diverse backgrounds and force them to live together, work together, listen to one another, and ultimately disagree if that is what comes of this. I think that the younger people in this country are more open and excepting of people who are not like them and have the greatest potential to make discrimination a thing of the past. I am sorry the Democratic candidates made the universities a sacrificial lamb in order to maintain their bona fides as unquestioning supporters of the troops.

This has nothing to do with the troops and everything to do with Democrats allowing themselves to be manipulated by Republicans. Members of the military have been used as political props. They should not be used as symbols of homophobia and why that sort of prejudice is right. I have never served in the military, but from what I have heard is that people in the military see themselves as brothers and sisters in arms. I cannot imagine them being happy with politicians hanging their sister in arms the way they did Major Margaret Witt who served for 19 years just to score political points. Is there really any question that members of our military are so unprofessional and disloyal to one another that they would have a meltdown if gay people were in their ranks? I have expressed reservations about the military, but someone pointed out to me that the military was the first part of the government to end segregation. While many not agree with our wars and the notion that one can disapprove of a war yet have uncritical support for those who carry it out, there is no denying that the military has been a courageous leader in civil rights. Politicians who use the military or the bullying of universities to score points with their hateful constituents is gross. It undermines the rich traditions that both institutions have cultivated. The Democratic front runners had a chance to really support the troops and their honorable legacy of having the courage to go against the grain of what was popular in society was a bad look.

On a lighter note, I could not stop laughing at the fact that Giuliani only polled one percentage point higher than the "uncommitted" vote. I lived under his tyranny in New York and I can't help but laugh when that megalomaniac cannot make everyone and everything bend to his will. I look forward to the day when his campaign to completely implode. Can we Kossacks set up a campaign death pool?

Tags: 2008 Elections, Democratic Debate, Military, Legislation, Discrimination, president (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 44 comments

  •  Thank you (7+ / 0-)

    That was the most depressing moment of the debate. I am very disappointed in all of our candidates tonight.

    Daily Kos used to be worthwhile.

    by andgarden on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM PDT

    •  I was embarassed (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Boston Boomer

      I wrote a diary entitled "I Don't Support the Troops." I regret it now, but only because I did not explore a more nuanced view and was so myopic in my displeasure with this war and its creators that I ignored the wonderful things our military has done. When someone goes to the ER with a gunshot wound or a failing heart, he owes his life to the Army medics as most of our trauma medicine was developed in combat.

      I made the grave mistake of conflating politicians' self-interests for which the military is used and the actual principles of our military. I wish the Democrats had stood up for the image of the military and the gay people who are in harm's way but nonetheless serves a government that openly despises them. That's just low.

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Didn't like it either (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    But I imagine that coming out against it during a campaign would be shooting oneself in the political foot, if not in the political stomach.

    The war for oil is a war for the Beast The War on Terror is a war on peace

    by El Yoss on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM PDT

  •  Schools can keep military off campus (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    They just can't do it and keep taking federal funds.

    Supreme Court ruled this was constitutional law passed by Congress.

    I support policy of gays serving openly in military.

    Change the law.

  •  I wish the Democrats had stood up for that law (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast

    It is certainly legal, but that does not make it right and the Democrats should have had the courage to really support the troops and pledge to change that shameful policy. It says that our troops are so disloyal to one another and unprofessional that they would just disregard the rules against fraternization.

    It seems support for the troops is a fair weather game. If the troop is gay, we are willing to hang him or her out to dry and spit on their service by expelling them. My God, we currently have a Marine who was accused of rape, allowed to remain free nonetheless (the Uniform Code of Military Justice is not the same as civilian law), and is now suspected of killing another Marine. That he was not expelled but someone who has committed no crime other than being gay is inexplicable.

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM PDT

  •  Not Exactly A Shove (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    farleftcoast, Drgrishka1

    When Republican zealots threatened to pull federal funding from those schools that did not allow the JAG Corps to use their facilities as sites for recruiting, the law schools refused to be strongarmed and told them they could take their money and shove it.

    That's not quite right. Some law schools sued, but when the law was upheld they all complied. None chose to decline the federal funds.

    •  The chose to decline (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast, Cassandra Waites

      because the Solomon Amendment requires that the entire university, not just the law school would lose all federal funding. The law schools were willing to eat the loss of federal funding for themselves, but not for the entire university.

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:52:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So essentially what you are saying (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Realist2004

        is that so long that no real money were at stake (law schools don't get that much federal funding) the universities were willing to stand up for their principles.  But when we started talking about real cash, the principles became disposable?

  •  Yeah, that one surprised me a little. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    homogenius, farleftcoast, andgarden

    I would have thought someone would have said something.

    As usual, the Democratic candidates take the gay population for granted.  Really, I shouldn't have been surprised.

    I honor that service, and I respect [McCain's] many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. Obama 6/3/08

    by AUBoy2007 on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 09:52:35 PM PDT

  •  The Supreme Court spoke (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    penguins4peace

    unanimously on the issue.  

    Congress has plenary authority to raise the Army and the Navy, and requiring colleges to simply permit access is well within that authority.  Not to mention that like any other contributor of cash, Congress has the right to attach strings to its largesse.  There are colleges that refuse federal aid, for instance Spellman.  

    (And nothing in the law requires an ROTC presence.  Columbia still doesn't have one).

    •  I am not disagreeing with the Constitutionality (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      I am disagreeing with the Democrats agreeing to enforce the law on the books. They should have pledged to end it. I never denied Congress' power of the purse. I said the Democrats should have denounced the law and vowed to end it.

      Good old Columbia! I got my BA there and was disappointed when they had McCain speak.

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:47:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? But having (0+ / 0-)

        Ahmadinejad (all in the name of "freedom of speech") was A-OK?

        •  I don't like either of them (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Boston Boomer, farleftcoast

          John McCain is anti-choice, cozies up with our American version of the Taliban aka such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who blamed "feminists, Democrats, the ACLU, abortionists, and witches" for 9/11.

          If McCain came to speak to the College Republicans, it would be different. McCain spoke at Commencement and that is totally different.

          Someone who is loved at Libery University does not belong at Commencement. He is not an alum, a lot of students were mad on what should have been everybody's day.

          Ahmadinejad was invited to speak by a campus group in a different setting. I would be appalled if he had been at Commencement.

          Regardless, I believe in everyone's freedom of speech. I am not willing to sacrifice our nation's principles for the likes Ahmadinejad. He is not worth it.

          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

          by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 10:54:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course, Columbia is not bound by the (0+ / 0-)

            First Amendment, nor does the First Amendment require provision of a private space to serve as a public forum to anyone.  It merely prohibits GOVERNMENT from interfering with speech.  

            Also, as far as I understand, it was Lee Bollinger (not some random group) that invited Ahmadinejad to speak.  

            Finally, if the criteria is that political figures with whom you disagree are inappropriate speakers for the Commencement, then henceforth, the most "controversial" speaker would be something on the order of Kermit the Frog.

            •  Pres. Bollinger didn't invite him (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              farleftcoast

              The School of International and Public Affairs sponsored the appearance Ahmadinejad. Bollinger declined to intervene and stop the event from occurring. He did introduce Ahmadinejad, though.

              There are many people one could have speak at Commencement. Controversial speakers are great, but someone who endorses hate speech and hateful organizations is not controversial, just annoying. Absolutists like McCain who became a Falwell groupie does not add to discourse because he is not interested in discussion, but issuing edicts from the Bible. Ahmadinejad is equally silly, but he agreed to a question and answer session (which produced jokes that just write themselves). Since he is a hateful person, he would be an inappropriate speaker to deliver a Commencement address. Controversial speakers are good because they stir thought and encourage people to consider other points of view. Someone who says "you must obey" is not promoting dialog.

              Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

              by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:30:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again, if that is your position (0+ / 0-)

                then pretty much means that no social conservative should ever be invited to speak at any commencement.  So how exactly would that promote "dialogue?"

                •  Issuing edicts (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Boston Boomer, farleftcoast

                  and asking someone to consider your opinion are not the same thing.

                  Gays are bad. Feminism is bad, shun it. The ACLU is bad, ban it. "Abortionists" caused 9/11. Those statements are not part of a diaglogue so much as they are parts of an intractable ideology.

                  Hate speech is not conversational because it is absolutist with no room for interpretation or the idea that ideas can coexist.

                  Are you a social conservative? I hope you do not mind me asking, I am just interested.

                  Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                  by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:39:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I am a libertarian (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    penguins4peace

                    But I do not believe in tagging speech "hate speech," at least until the speaker actually advocates physical violence (or something close to it) against the targets of his ire.

                    •  Cool (0+ / 0-)

                      Good to have a libertarian on this site. I do not think that a statement has to advocate violence to be hate speech. What if someone said that blacks are inferior and should be paid less? Or that Jews are evil and should not be permitted to work in certain industries. Or, what about saying the very presence of certain types of people invites divine retribution because they are so horrible?

                      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                      by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:55:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Being Allowed (0+ / 0-)

                        On campus and invited to paid for forum are two entirely different matters.

                        A real open and hearing even if it does  anything more than help verify what one might have heard reported in the news; and someone just speaking freely about the courtyard are simply not equivalent.

                        Stray assholes need not apply! Yes, we should hear for ourselves what  an official from Iran have might say.

                      •  I think that the "divine retribution" (0+ / 0-)

                        and possibly "inferior" statement (so long as the latter is backed up with some stats) are within bounds.  First because it is merely a statement of religious belief, and second (again to the extent that it is back up with stats) because it can lead to a discusssion about given method of gathering data and flaws therei and other academic debate.

                        In any event, McCain never suggested said anything of the kind.  A perosn he occasionally associates with did.  But we generally do not do "guilt by association."  If we did, most Democrats who come to New York and meet with Al Sharpton would be out too.

                        •  Inferiority based on race (0+ / 0-)

                          has been discredited by serious scientists. The divine retribution thing is one step away from violence. If someone feels that the existence of certain people causes god to, say, knock down the twin towers, then what do you think is the next point in that way of thinking? I think the logical conclusion is that if those people who incurred God's wrath must be destroyed lest he rain down his fury on us again.

                          The McCain thing is so strange. Falwell caused him every name in the book before McCain started to claim that he left the Episcopal church to the Baptist church. Falwell had nothing good to say about him until he adopted his views.

                          Guilt by association is applicable to those who hang out with groups that do not allow anyone who does not agree with them. I could not hang out with Neo-Nazis because I am black. Neo-Nazis would not hang out with a white person who does not agree with them because that person is a race traitor. People like Falwell and Robertson are like that. Al Sharpton is willing to deal with anyone and does not excoriate others and say they are going to hell.

                          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                          by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No Sharpton just ruins specific people'sr (0+ / 0-)

                            reputation by saying that they gang raped a young girl and then refuses to apologize.

                            And I disagree with you on the issue that "divine retribution" is one step away from violence.  There are plenty of pacifists who believe in divine retribution.

                            As for the furst point, while true, more data is more data.  So if someone wants to challenge CW with more data, seems like the way to handle it is to analyze that data and attempt to find flaws therein.

                            •  Al Sharpton (0+ / 0-)

                              ...is like fame junky celebrities who would go to the opening of an envelope.

                              Look, the whole Tawana Brawley thing was a disaster. I was a little young when that all went down so I do not know much about it other than that the charges the young lady made were untrue. I could be mistaken, but was it implied that the girl was coerced by Sharpton and others to make outrageous claims? Did Sharpton knowingly make this up or did he really believe that girl's story?

                              As I said, I do not know much about the incident except that the allegations were false. But, who among us did not believe that the kids in the Central Park Rapist case were guilty only to learn recently that they had nothing to do with it. It is true that they were part of a mob that terrorized people in the park that day and were rightly convicted of those crimes, but a lot of authors, cops, assistant DAs, and journalists made their careers by covering the case and the accused with the most over the top language. I do not personally know of anyone who believed those boys were innocent. We were all wrong. Even though someone has confessed to the crime and the confessions they gave were proven to be the product of coercion and some misconduct in the DAs office, there are people in law enforcement who are enraged that their sentences on the rape charges were vacated. It is strongly suggested that cops and prosecutors were under a lot of political pressure to pin the charge on anyone. So, while the Tawana Brawley case was bad, I won't be so quick to condemn Sharpton for believing a lie that someone told. He should apologize for being wrong.

                              Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                              by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:17:40 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  Well a jury found him liable (0+ / 0-)

                                for defamation.  He refused to pay the verdict or apologize.  (Eventually the verdict was paid by his friends).  

                                As I am sure you know, it is extraordiarily hard to win a defamation suit.  The jury found that Sharpton either KNEW he was lying or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.  

                                Even after the grand jury in Brawley's case concluded that there was no evidence whatever to back up her story, Sharpton accused everyone of conspiracy.

                                And that is not his only achievement.  He called white business owners in Harlem "interlopers."  He made a number of inflamatorry and racist statements during the Crown Heights riots.  And yet, somehow he is still  arespected "leader?"

                                •  I can't understand (0+ / 0-)

                                  how he has somehow emerged as someone who is taken seriously. I am not one to criticize a jury verdict if I was not privy to the testimony. If they, as the finders of fact, found that he had defamed the persons who he accused, then that is unforgivable. Not only did he ruin the lives of the men he accused, but he handed the people who like to dismiss claims of sexual assault by saying women "cry rape." I know the Brawley case is often cited.

                                  I remember the whole "white interloper" dust up and the Crown Heights riots. He is unhelpful. There was, and still is, a sad trend whereby black businesses were disappearing in Harlem. I am saddened by the demolition of the Theresa Hotel as it is such an important historical landmark. By making over the top and stupid statements like that, he makes issues about him. I think that all communities benefit from small business ownership, which was what Harlem was comprised of before gentrification priced those businesses out. Once Al Sharpton got in the mix he became the issue, not the preservation of a neighborhood.

                                  The Crown Heights incident had bad actors on both sides. Everyone was making racist statements. What got lost in all of was that blacks and Hasidim who lived in that community were equally poor. Many Hasidim choose to go for religious study and devote themselves to religion rather than conventional jobs. As a result, many are on welfare. Instead of two poor groups who lived alongside one another banding together to make a better way for both, we had so-called leaders on both sides saying, doing, and encouraging hatred. In those days, New York was trapped in racial violence. The Bensonhust murder. The Howard Beach killings.

                                  Al Sharpton is attractive to people who have a legitimate beef who are not having their needs met. He is controversial and whenever he opens his mouth, news cameras flock towards him. When people have to avail themselves of Al Sharpton because they have been wronged by the government or because law enforcement is not doing its due diligence, we have truly failed as a society. Rudy Giuliani and his outrageous and racist behavior has allowed Sharpton to gain legitimacy. Giuliani was always on the wrong side of issues, especially when it came to encroaching on individual liberties and police brutality. Al Sharpton was always on the side of the morally outraged society. I do not know if I have ever written about how it was to live in New York under the rule of Giuliani, but I should. As a libertarian you would have been appalled. There are crime statics on a page but they hide at what cost we got those stats. As the quote at the bottom of my comment says, I do not believe in sacrificing liberty under the guise of providing security.

                                  Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                                  by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 10:08:45 AM PDT

                                  [ Parent ]

                                  •  I certainly did not mean to get you to (0+ / 0-)

                                    defend Al Sharpton.  (And I am glad you did not).

                                    But my point is that if we are to bar speakers from Commencement Addresses based on what their political allies might have said at some point, we will be left with no Commencement speakers.  

                                    •  Yeah, I can't defend him (0+ / 0-)

                                      In the end, we all have to me responsible for our own behavior, but some politicians have aided and abetted the rise of Al Sharpton. How sad is it that our government has gone so far off track that Al Sharpton is a viable and/or more attractive option to people who have grievances. Do you ever wonder what we pay some of these people for?

                                      I see your point on Commencement speakers. Maybe a crazy speech would liven up that dreadfully dull ceremony :)

                                      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                                      by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:00:12 AM PDT

                                      [ Parent ]

                                      •  My University had Liddy Dole (0+ / 0-)

                                        We were all uber-excited, because at the time she was still considered to be a viable Presidential candidate, still the President of American Red Cross (who by all accounts managed it well), a former Cabinet Secretary, and an all-around accomplished woman.  We thought it was a great score to get her.

                                        And I must say that her speech was the most dreadful hour of my life.  It was full of boring platitudes and pointless exhortations.  If she had gone on for another 15 minutes I wouldhave garroted myself with my tassel.

                                        •  BWAH! (0+ / 0-)

                                          If she had gone on for another 15 minutes I wouldhave garroted myself with my tassel.

                                          I do not even remember who spoke at my Commencement.

                                          With Ahmadinejad, all I can say is some jokes write themselves. His "there are no gays in Iran" remark brought the house down. Maybe he should speak at Commencement because, whether he means it or not, he is  hilarious. I question how much power he actually has in Iran beyond Chief Shit Stirrer. Can you really get angry at Bozo the Clown (no offense to Bozo)?

                                          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

                                          by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 11:26:34 AM PDT

                                          [ Parent ]

    •  Pacifism (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      Schools that have a "long standing history of pacifism" are exempted from this policy. I do not know how one determines whether or not a school has a long history of pacifism.

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:17:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Law schools end job recruitment (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      farleftcoast

      The Solomon Amendment requires that the military be given equal access to law school facilities. But if law schools just end job recruiting fairs then barring the military would be perfectly legal under the Solomon Amendment. Congress could force universities to let the military on campus without threating to withhold funds because Congress has the power to raise and support an army. Congress would have to pass a law directly ordering schools to do it, though.

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by yankeeliberal on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:20:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Also, (0+ / 0-)

    The Solomon Amendment is not just about gays.  Tomorrow some schools may choose to refuse JAG recruiters because they oppose the war, or they oppose the funding for a particular project, or simply because they don't like certain provisions of the military criminal code.  Or even because the university is anti-military period (say they are pacifists).  There are plenty of reasons that a university can come up with why they do not wish to have recruiters on campus.  

    All the Solomon Amendment says is that if they wish to take any of those stances, they gotta do it on their own dime.

  •  They should have said three things-- (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    klayman, AUBoy2007

    1- They would enforce the law, because it's a law.  We've had eight years of selective enforcement of the law, and that makes us less of a nation-under-law.

    2- They'd ask Congress to change the law, because it is anti-freedom and that's what we are supposed to be about.  Freedom of association means having to accept things we don't like.

    3- The Solomon Amendment was never about the genuine problem of too few students from our so-called elite institutions (the only ones that would consider barring military recruiters and ROTC) considering military service.  It was a phony solution to a real problem, one that we'll need to look at creatively.

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 05:35:37 AM PDT

    •  I have a question (0+ / 0-)

      I have health problems that would preclude me from serving in the military. But why do you find it problematic that people from "so-called elite" institutions do not join the military? Do you think we should have compulsory military service? I am sure that one reason why people do not consider the military is because of the crushing debt college graduates carry upon graduation. It takes years for them to get in the black. But I would love to hear your opinion.

      And would you prefer it if we referred to "elite" schools as prestigious ones? I am confused by the objection some people have about the use of that word when it comes to schools or jobs or whatever. Help me out on this one.

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:06:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Answers, as best as I can! (0+ / 0-)

        They don't join the military because it's not as attractive an option as a million other things they could do.  This applies to all high-achieving students, but at elite institutions everyone is high-achieving so it's more visible.  There is probably not much we can do about this, short of giving them completely ridiculous incentives that others don't get, but forcing schools to welcome military recruiters isn't part of the solution.

        I prefer "elite" to "prestigious" because elite suggests an active element of social exclusion, which is what characterizes those schools.  It suggests their bad side as well as the good.

        -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

        by Rich in PA on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:21:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I went to a so-called "elite" school (0+ / 0-)

          for high school, college, law school, and business school and I never felt I was a part of a socially exclusive group. I saw my classmates as my classmates. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by social exclusion...I certainly hope there aren't people who go around denigrating other schools because they think their schools are more "elite." That would be embarrassing. I am proud of having gone to all of the schools from which I was awarded degrees because I am proud of my work, because I completed rigorous programs, and because I made lifelong friendships. Everyone should have school spirit, that makes things fun. I mean, where would college tailgating be without SOME school spirit? It is hard to get people to strip down and paint themselves without their being school spirit. Shit, at my high school, when homecoming was held at our campus, the thing to do is to take an article of clothing off of a fan of the opposing team. I snatched a few caps off of guys twice my size (I'm a woman).

          Where do you think people cross the line of school spirit or just being proud of getting admitted and completing a degree program that is well regarded?

          Thanks for answering my questions.

          Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

          by yankeeliberal on Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 06:34:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Permalink | 44 comments