On March 6, the Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Defense had the constitutional right to deny universities federal funds (including research grants) if they prevented military recruitment on campus. The ruling in the case, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, was a particular blow to the United Faculty of the Washington University School of Law. The United Faculty of the Law School is one of 24 known members of the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), a plaintiff in the initial suit against the Department of Defense. While the Editorial Board of Student Life appreciates the spirit of the United Faculty of the Law School’s efforts, it believes that this fight was not worth taking up.

The Law School enacted a nondiscrimination policy in 1990, proclaiming “only employers who sign a statement affirming that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or disability, age, or sexual orientation” would be allowed access to the Law School Career Center. The majority of law schools have similar policies. Meanwhile, the military famously enacted the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rule, which forbids openly gay individuals from being employed by any branch of the military. This abhorrent rule clearly violates the nondiscrimination policy of Wash. U.’s law school and many others, and as such, law school campuses across the country forbade the military to recruit on their grounds.

That is, until the Solomon Amendment. Passed in 1996 and commonly known as the Solomon Amendment, federal law Title 10 United States Code  983 states, “No funds.may be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student aid) to an institution of higher education (including any subelement of that institution) if the Secretary of Defense determines that that institution (or any subelement of that institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect, prevents” the ROTC or military recruiters on campus. In other words, the Law School’s commendable nondiscrimination policy could cost the entire University federal grant money (until 1999, financial aid was also included). In fact, Vermont Law School, New York Law School and William Mitchell College of Law have all already lost federal funding because of their nondiscrimination policies.

While the fight against the Solomon Amendment is a good one, it is not worth the substantial risk. For starters, law students are wise enough to make their own decisions. If the military wants to recruit them, they can protest on their own by simply saying no. Further, if law students are willing to be lawyers for the military despite “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” they should have the same access to the military as they would other employers.

Further, there are more important issues for law schools and universities to battle. The Budget Reconciliation Bill, passed on Feb. 2, increases interest rates on Stafford and PLUS loans. The Perkins Loan program is set to be fully eliminated, and Pell Grants are to be frozen at their current levels. In a Dec. 7, 2005 Student Life article, Director of Student Financial Services Bill Witbrodt voiced his opposition to the legislation, saying, “I’m against any legislation that diminishes the possibility of providing excess to kids.” Instead of using its time and money to fight the Solomon Amendment, the University, including the United Faculty of the Law School and other members of FAIR, should try to be on the forefront of combating these harmful financial aid cuts.

Witbrodt also stated that the new legislation “impacts students everywhere of every type.” These budget cuts hurt students both gay and straight. It is more pressing for universities everywhere, including Wash. U., to fight to give lower-income students the opportunity to receive higher education than to fight a largely futile war against the military’s discriminatory policies. It’s hard to imagine that the military would change their policy even if they lost the case, and simply allowing military recruiters is not a sign of endorsement. In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote “A military recruiter’s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school’s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter’s message.” Roberts is completely right.

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.