Touching on contentious issues such as free speech, national
defense and gay rights, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it
will most likely overturn a decision to prohibit military
recruitment on college campuses and law schools, despite the
military’s discriminatory policies against open homosexuals
in the armed forces.
The case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional
Rights, is a response to a coalition of law schools from around the
country attempting to deny military recruiters access to their
campuses because of the military’s “don’t ask,
don’t tell” policy, which strictly prohibits gay and
lesbian military personnel from exposing their sexual
orientations.
The UCLA School of Law is not involved in the case because of
University of California policy.
In the 1970s, the law school mandated that employers that
discriminate on certain grounds, including sexual orientation, were
not allowed access to the campus and its students.
In 1984, however, then-UC President David Gardner stated the
official policy of the UC was only to exclude groups performing
illegal actions, thereby allowing military recruitment despite its
discrimination.
Submitted by the American Association of University Professors,
the current case challenges the 1994 Solomon Amendment. The
amendment requires all parts of a college or university to grant
military recruiters equal access to the schools’ career
service programs. Otherwise, the entire institution could lose
federal funds.
UCLA political science Professor Thomas Schwartz believes
Congress has the right to deny funds to any institution that
operates contrary to federal policies, just as long as they are not
denying anyone’s ““ including the law faculty’s
““ right to free expression.
“(People) still have a right to go to Bruin Plaza and
attack Congress about these issues, but that’s different than
saying the law school has the right to discourage military
recruitment,” Schwartz said.
In November 2005, FAIR challenged the amendment and prevailed in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, but the federal
government appealed the decision, bringing the issue to the Supreme
Court.
One of the main arguments FAIR presented against open
recruitment is the school’s right to refuse potential
employers if they do no not comply with the university’s
nondiscriminatory guidelines, which they said includes the armed
forces.
Lieutenant Colonel Sean Buck, a UCLA professor of military
science, said UCLA, refraining from the FAIR case, complies with
the Solomon Amendment by treating recruiters “like any other
employer, while still protecting the privacy of their
students.”
But no matter what the ideological battle is, Buck believes the
most important thing is to offer college students opportunities
they would not receive elsewhere.
“I think college is about the opportunity for students to
learn to voice their opinions and to learn. The ROTC and other
military programs are for people who choose to do it. College wants
as many opportunities for students as possible,” Buck
said.
Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney for FAIR, said he believed the
case is not about whether military recruiters will be banned from
the campus gates, but rather about Congress’ ability to pass
laws for the federal government’s ““ rather than the
people’s ““ benefit.
“Congress had a law on the books that guaranteed entry to
campus. But that was not what Congress really wanted, so it passed
a new law. What Congress really wants is to squelch even the most
symbolic elements of the law school’s resistance to
disseminating the military’s message,” Rosenkranz said
in Tuesday’s hearing.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Paul Clement argued Tuesday
that the federal government is not asking for any predetermined or
unfair privilege, but the same open opportunities to recruit
“the best and the brightest for the military’s crucial
and vital mission” as any other organization.
Schwartz agreed, saying that regardless of the merits and
problems of the current code of military justice and its treatment
of homosexuality, public universities and their law schools have no
right to forbid the military access to campus.
“It’s gross and arrogant for public law schools to
claim a right as a corporate union, not as individuals, to use
their institution to promote an ideological objective at all. …
They are owned as an institution by the citizens of California, and
it’s the citizens’ decision. They’re not a
private club,” he said.
With reports from Bruin wire services.