Military Recruuiters on Campus

Over at Findlaw.com, columnistMarci Hamilton makes a case for why the Solomon Amendment will remain in place. For those uninitiated into the realm of college funding, the Solomon amendment, the subject of next term's Supreme Court Case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), dictates that schools receiving federal funds must allow miltary recruiters on campus to recruit for their services.

Prof. Hamilton makes a number of good points, but I would like to make another policy one and another, more legal, argument for the Supreme Court. First the legal one. Congress routinely couches the awarding of federal money to states and other public institutions in the language of accepting certain conditions. The most famous one may be from South Dakota v. Dole, a case which arose out of Congress's desire to implement a policy by tying it to federal highway funds. Congress wanted the states to raise the minimum drinking age to 21. Since the states controlled the drinking age, Congress decided to say that if the states wanted their federal highway money, they had to raise the drinking age. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by use of hte spending power, could put such reasonable restrictions and strings on the receipt of federal money.

With the Solomon Amendment, Congress did the same thing. In order for colleges, universities, law schools and medical schools, to get federal funds, they must allow military recruiters on campus. Prof. Hamilton makes several good points about what the law doesn't do and it doesn't call upon the law schools to endorse miltary policy (which in this case centers on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy).

Prof. Hamilton also implicitly notes that only the dimmest, dumbest and least educated person would equate a law school's or any school's allowing of military recruiters on campus as a school endorsement of the policy. Given that protests over military recruiters is rampant, it would seem that there are avenues to protest teh military policies without barring recruiters.

But on a more policy and political foundation, I would argue that this lawsuit, while their right, fails to understand one key function of the military--to protect our rights to file stupid lawsuits. Many people find little difficulty in fighting for their beliefs. Some are even willing to die for those beliefs.

However, for those who would support these wayward professors and their followers, take this test. Imagine the one person whose very words, very actions and very existence makes your blood boil. Imagine that person is an American. Now, can you honestly and truly say that you are willing to die for their beliefs?

Most military lawyers will never be presented with the concept of dying for someone else's beliefs. But the military provides an important service to our country and that military needs lawyers and leaders. Where is the military to turn? The service acadmies can provide only so many officers. Thus they services turn to colleges and universities for leaders, to law schools for lawyers and to medical schools for doctors. The Solomon Amendment provides that access and that is all access. The military is still an all-volunteer force.

For the members of FAIR (what a rediculous name), I suggest you do what should be done when you don't like a policy--go lobby Congress. Just like Congress can attach strings to federal funding, Congress has the exclusive jurisdiction to change the rules for the military (it's in the Constitution, you can look it up). I happen to think the don't ask, don't tell policy and the policy against gays in the military is simply ludicrous, but if I wanted to change, I would lobby Congress not go to court where you are doomed to fail.