Great to be on board for a few days. Thanks Erick!!
I am a law student at the ridiculously liberal University of New Mexico. As you probably know by now, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that colleges can bar military recruiters if they disagree with the “Don’t ask, don’t tell policy” concerning homosexuals in the military. (The entire decision can be found here in pdf format) I don’t even know where to begin to explain to you how outrageous I think this decision is. (I do, howver, expect it to be overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court)
My law school has been whining about this since I got there. Now, Harvard is already telling the military to go pound sand.
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – Harvard Law School will return to a policy that keeps the military from recruiting on campus in the wake of a federal court decision allowing colleges and universities to bar recruiters without fear of losing federal money.
Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan said the decision, effective Tuesday, will allow the school to enforce its nondiscrimination policy without exception, “including to the military services.”
Harvard had forbidden any recruiter from campus — military or otherwise — that couldn’t sign off on the school’s nondiscrimination policy. Harvard, like other schools, said the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was discriminatory, because it forbids overt gays and lesbians from serving in the armed forces.
Who does Harvard think they are kidding?
If it wasn’t the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy,” the law schools like Harvard would say that they were opposed to the Iraq War, and thus should be able to bar recruiters. And when that is over, they’d just say that allow recruiters on campus is a “de facto draft” and that they oppose the draft.
These liberal law schools hate the military. Bottom line. I know it because I see it every day. They do not come out and say it, because they know they can’t. So they just act like they are fighting discrimination. I know better. So do you.
Congress should just refuse to give them money. What are the liberal judges going to do then, take over the spending power? Congress should dare them to, and respond to Harvard by cutting off whatever research funding Harvard gets immediately. Make an example of them. Let the law schools cry all they want. They won’t get a sympathetic ear outside of the usual circles anyway. People will see it as the military vs. the colleges, and we know who the vast majority will support. The colleges, as much as they act like it, are not entitled to one dime of the public treasury.
One other thing. The dissenting judge in this case gets it:
A dissenting judge, Ruggero J. Aldisert, appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, said the decision was misguided, particularly in wartime.
“What disturbs me personally and as a judge,” Judge Aldisert wrote, “is that the law schools seem to approach this question as an academic exercise, a question on a constitutional law examination or a moot court topic, with no thought of the effect of their action on the supply of military lawyers and military judges.”
“No court heretofore has ever declared unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds any Congressional statute specifically designed to support the military,” he added. “It bears note that the military’s policy against homosexual activity has been adjudged by a number of our sister courts of appeal not to violate the Constitution.”