home

Congress v. Law Schools

by TChris

Some members of Congress evidently believe the First Amendment doesn't apply to law schools. Representatives recently voted (by 327 to 84) to support a resolution encouraging the executive branch to challenge a Third Circuit decision that upheld the right of law schools to ban military recruiters from their campuses without losing federal funding. The military needs more lawyers, but some law schools prefer not to be associated with the military's discriminatory policies.

The 2-to-1 [court] decision relied in large part on a ruling in 2000 by the Supreme Court to allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmasters. Just as the Scouts have a First Amendment right to bar gays, the appeals court said, law schools may prohibit groups that they consider discriminatory.

Representative Tammy Baldwin explains why the resolution (like the law withholding federal funds from campuses that "obstruct" military recruiting) is short-sighted.

"We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources," Ms. Baldwin said. "When 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?"

< Shiites Push for Islamic Constitution | Protesting Election Irregularities >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#1)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:32:52 AM EST
    I'm a little mixed on this. One one hand, I can see the need to strengthen the military (through the addition of lawyers??), and facilitate recruitment. On the other, a school should be able to set their own policies, and nothing is preventing those students who are interested from pursuing recruitment on their own. Sadly, this nuance will likely be lost on absolutists on both sides.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:41:39 AM EST
    Funny how it's the schools that prefer not to associate - perhaps those poor wittle wambsy waw wudents are too tender for military recruiters? Hey, they would let the IRS on campus to recruit and if I had to choose between the military and the IRS..... -C

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#3)
    by glanton on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    Universities aren't going to affect military policies by banning them from campus, anyway. You'd think one way to fight discrimination would be to get the best lawyers in there our country has to offer. We need more high quality law school students, less sadistic and cowardly Generals in the military.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#4)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:03:16 AM EST
    Your new Delta Chi name is "Elmer Cliff". ;)

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    Why are they singling out law schools? Military recruitment is down across the board, and it's not just law schools that ban recruiters.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#6)
    by glanton on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    Michael D: I don't really think, overall, that 'they' are singling out law schools. But given the philosophical bent of this site, it makes sense that we would. For my money, I strongly oppose any element of the university banning the military from campus, because I happen to think that college educated men and women have at least as much to contribute to society as anyone. And maybe in the case of the military, a little more in the way of tolerance and anti-discrimination. Plus, it's just ridiculous, and even un-American (to borrow a phrase from O'Leilly), to ban voices of any kind from an institution that makes its bread and butter on vocality.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    Adept - Thank you, and I will wear it with pwide! glanton - Please cite an example of sadistic and cowardly generals in the US military. You may not use Union generals from the pre-Grant era. Honestly, one would think you were Eason Jordan! -C

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:40:42 PM EST
    Cliff: How about Mattis, for goodness sake? Have you been following this website or the news in general at all?

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    Honestly Cliff, if you are so red-hot about the military, why the hell haven't you joined up? Then you could give us the inside scoop on how perfectly magnificent all soldiers, sailors and Marines are and how none of them ever do anything wrong. Why don't you join up if you think war is so damn cool and you think Bush needs your support. Your country is calling Cliff! Where are you? Cheers, Alan Tomlinson

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 02:16:13 PM EST
    Alan - If a 41 year old guy with a bad ACL could join the military then that might be an option. glanton - What was sadistic and/or cowardly about what Mattis said? As I recall he sait it was fun to shoot some people due to their behavior. I recall my Uncle telling me that he'd enjoyed shooting Japanese during his "Island Tour" with the Marines. See, they'd bayoneted his best friend from boot camp when they over-ran a hospital in the Philipenes. He never had anything from Japan in his house while he lived. Ever hear of Patton, McArthur, Grant, Lee, McAuliffe, et. al? All made similar statements. The world is a harsh place, thank god for the Marines and the Army. (I'm not so sure about the Navy and the Air Force. :-) -C

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 03:03:55 PM EST
    This is a real conundrum, but I come down on the side of letting recruiters into the law schools. The reason I say this is because I firmly believe we need to insure that a good number of intelligent, well-educated, thoughtful and moral law school graduates spend part of their legal careers in military service. Please reflect for a moment on what combatants do when the shooting starts. They stare their own death in the face; they kill people; they destroy things. There is absolutely nothing abstract about any of that. Anybody who's ever been in combat will confirm that you don't shoot at someone, or thrust a bayonet into another human being's chest, without risking your own humanity. At its best, combat is a terrifying, horrific, kill-or-be-killed exprience, unlike any other in its brutal, barbaric terror. At its worst, it can drive people mad, with terrible results. Military lawyers are always a factor in regard to combat. Fundamentally, military lawyers are much like civilian lawyers, except they are much closer to, and have a better understanding of the awful realities of combat. Within the military the lawyers help to hold the jagged line between war and war crimes. We need them, and we need them to be as intelligent and thoughtful as they can possibly be. Think back. Since the Bush Admnistration tricked our well-intentioned country into this harebrained Iraq war, within the armed forces it has been the military lawyers who have spoken out courageously, loudly and in unison, to oppose suspension of the Geneva Conventions, to urge that the "enemy combatants" and "detainees" imprisoned in GTMO and elsewhere, and being denied due process, be treated as POW's and accorded the right to counsel and access to proper tribunals. Within the military it has been the lawyers who have opposed torture and pursued the torturers. One of the biggest dangers of an "all volunteer military" (this is said with sincere apologies to the National Guard and Army Reserve)is that it can become too insular, too sure of its own moral code. A large contingent of fresh new lawyers, with legal training, devotion to duty and a good civilian perspective flowing through the armed forces helps the military to keep its priorities from going out of alignment. As long as we have a mililtary I submit that we must facilitate and encourage young lawyers to spend time in uniformn. I believe that granting the military and the law schools access to each other is one of the best ways to do that.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    Terry - I disagree with all your opinions about the war and our military but agree 100% on your conclusions. :-) -C

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    Cliff--Thanks for advising that you agree with my conclusions. Lots of other people do, too. I was startled, however, to read that you disagree with my opinions about war, since I'm not sharing "opinions" about war, I'm sharing memories. And before you become too giddy about agreeing with my conclusions, please be advised that one of my main conclusions is that we should welcome openly gay and lesbian JAG officers in our military; sexual preference has nothing to do with patriotism, devotion to duty or ability. One last point, there is plenty of room in today's military for 41 year old guys (like you) with bad ACL's--trust me, I have a friend who's 62 years old and on active duty; go talk to your local reserve unit, there are lots of openings, and I'm sure they could find something for you to do in the war--you could drive a HUMVEE, for example, hell, you might even have a chance to get your ACL blown clean off by one of those IED's we read about, and then it won't be bad anymore! One last thought, have I ever mentioned that I think armchair generals are pathetic?

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 05:52:47 PM EST
    The point is whether they apply this standard to all organizations that want to recruit on campus. If they don't allow companies that discriminate against gays they shouldn't be forced to let the military in.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    The focus on law schools is based in part on ethic rules that suggest allowing recruiters in promotes discrimination. I think not allowing them in is counterproductive. Schools should promote sharing of different points of views, including recruiters. Also, as others suggest, more liberal lawyers in the military is a good thing. This also is a special case given the military needs of the times as well as the funding issue. But, it is on the practical level that the schools seem to be taking an inadvisable path. Challenge the ban on gays in the courts. Keep recruiters off campus isn't the way to go.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#16)
    by cp on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 08:48:57 PM EST
    TChris, you neglected to mention the fall-out that the boy scouts are starting to get from that supreme court decision: the loss of free federal & state goodies. by setting themselves up as a private organization, not obliged to follow federal or state law with respect to discrimination, they are also in the process of losing their tax exempt status. discrimination costs money. they've already lost the use of fort a.p. hill, free of charge, for their jamboree, and are steadily losing the free use of other venues, for meeting space, as well as the accomodations that were provided, also free of charge. as the burning tree country club found out, many years ago, you are free to discriminate, as long as you're willing to pay the freight. i'm not so sure the law schools will be quick to want to pay that freight. with regards to "liberal" lawyers in the military, i have to laugh. they would go through ocs, or plc, just like any other college graduate. there, they will be indoctrinated into the military way of thinking, along with learning how to use a map, compass and m-16. they will be taught the ucmj, the controlling body of law for all branches of the service. whatever liberalness they might have upon entering, will be totally irrelevant in their job in jag. cliff, provide cites for grant and lee saying they enjoyed killing. otherwise, shut up.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    Cliff, you write: "Ever hear of Patton, McArthur, Grant, Lee, McAuliffe, et. al? All made similar statements: Perhaps it is as you say, although I have read Grant's Memoirs as well as Lee's and don't rememebr passages where either expressed relish in the sensation of killing. But I admit such things are outside of me, as not for one second could I ever identify with a mindset that would inspire the kind of comment we're talking about here. Perhaps for some it is a necessary way of thinking, perhaps some are indeed built for killing, in the service of whatever sense of good they subscribe to. I do not have to respect it, however, or try to empathize with it, whatever the context. Call me a coward or a traitor or whatever, but I would just as soon live my whole life without ever spilling a drop of human blood. And I naiively cling to the hope that most soldiers on this speck of dirt kill out of necessity only, and that even then they look back at the thing with grave hearts. Such is the proper state of humanity, 'harsh' though the world may be.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:38:06 AM EST
    Come on, Cliff. A bad ACL is keeping you out of the service at age 41? That is so lame. You could get in to the fray if you wanted. You believe in it. Do it. Your ACL would be the least of your worries. I would look forward to hearing your thoughts after a tour or two. Come on, join up. Don't hide behind the ACL.

    Re: Congress v. Law Schools (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:02:29 AM EST
    I have been on probation for about 2 years, during this time I have found it hard to live a normal life labled as a felon... Branded is more like it. I am A Veteran who served his country at the age of 24. I am 28 years old now and do all I can to follow the rules, My probation officer loves me because I am an easy case... I have reformed he said,but yet I still carry the cross of my past and live in the same city I commited those drug enduced crimes, it's very difficult to hold up your head when you worry about seeing people who you have hurt or stole from, But for now I make due until my probation is over... Will my life ever be normal again? Is there such a place where I wont be labled? please e-mail me @ fillbaccari@yahoo.com and let me know because even if you change and find the right road to travel you still need to be able to dream about a future where for once people will make a judgement by your character or the clothes you wear, not by what they read in the paper or what they saw on tv.