Trust me, more hinges on this pending case than the future of the don’t ask, don’t tell policy.
The Supreme Court confronts a gay rights issue this week, in a case that asks whether law schools can bar military recruiters because of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Each fall recruiters of all types jam law schools seeking top students in job fairs, receptions and interview sessions.
Justices will decide whether universities that accept government money must accommodate the military even if the schools forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
It is the first time that the court has dealt with a gay-rights related case since a contentious 2003 ruling that struck down laws criminalizing gay sex. In 2000, the court ruled that the Boy Scouts have the right to ban leaders who are openly gay.
The latest appeal pits the Pentagon against a group of law schools and professors. The justices hear arguments on Tuesday.
The government contends if it provides financial support to a college – with grants for research, for example – then in exchange it should be able to recruit “the very students whose education it has supported.” In this case, that means having the ability to recruit students, a tool made more essential since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Federal financial support of colleges tops $35 billion a year.
Law schools say they would welcome military recruiters if the Pentagon dropped its policy against openly gay personnel. Gay men and women may serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
The outcome turns on the First Amendment and whether schools can be made to associate with military recruiters or promote their appearances on campus.
No one is advocating that the schools are being made to associate with any governmental policy; federal assistance can always be declined by an institution if federal recruiters, specifically military recruiters, are unwanted for any reason. That is the choice currently in the hands of the universities, who apparently want to continue to suck on the federal tit while arbitrarily dictating to the military how it should manage itself during its defense of our nation if it merely wants access to those suckling.
While the previous two gay-rights decisions mentioned in the article do not bode well for the government in this matter, it should be noted that, at least to my understanding, there is a long-standing history of rulings in favor of the restrictions on some constitutional rights by members of the military, especially in times of an all-voluntary force. That those same restrictions could be used to prevent the government from seeking members seems rather flawed, especially when one considers that the universities have an out (refuse money based on principles if, indeed, those principles are that strong) and any participation by individuals is not compulsory.
Still, the Supremes have disappointed me very badly and very recently, so this one’s a crap shoot.
I was asked today and have often wondered something about Veterans Day — who is it truly meant to honor? Memorial Day is easy — that is a day to remember and pay homage to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in the uniform (though everyday we wake up free should be such a day). I knew the origins of today’s holiday, with Nov. 11 (the anniversary of the end of World War I in 1918) formerly being set aside as Armistice Day to honor those who served in that great conflict. In 1954, the name of the holiday was changed to include the veterans of WWII and Korea. Obviously, Veterans Day is a tribute to veterans, but my question was if it was truly meant for combat veterans or those like myself who only served in peacetime?