SC ok's campus recruiting

[Heretic]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/...pus_recruiters

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the government can force colleges to open their campuses to military recruiters despite university objections to the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.
ADVERTISEMENT

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and professors who claimed they should not have to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

The decision was a setback for universities that had become the latest battleground over the military policy allowing gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

The ruling does not, however, answer broader questions about the policy itself. Challenges are pending in courts in Boston and Los Angeles that could eventually reach the high court.

Justices seemed swayed by the Bush administration's arguments that after the terrorist attacks, and during the war in
Iraq, the government had a responsibility to bolster its recruitment.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that campus visits are an effective recruiting tool. And, he said, "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."

The 8-0 decision upheld a federal law that says universities must give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.

Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money.

"When you're in the middle of war, even if it's not a terribly popular one, courts are hesitant to tie the hands of the military," said Jon Davidson, legal director of gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the decision "an important victory for the military and ultimately for our national security."

The military's policy had put college leaders in a thorny situation because of campus rules that forbid participation of recruiters representing agencies or private companies that have discriminatory policies.

Most college leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.

Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court last fall, said there are other less drastic options for protesting the policy. "Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message," he wrote.

Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney for the challengers of the law, said that the case called attention to the military policy. "A silver lining to the Supreme Court's opinion is the court made it clear," he said, "law schools are free to organize protests."

Geoffrey Shields, dean of Vermont Law School, said the school since 1999 has given up some federal money and will continue to bar recruiters "as a symbol of the importance of fair treatment of all people."

"We've stuck to our guns and I anticipate we'll continue to stick to our guns," he said.

Roberts' decision carefully sidestepped taking a stand on the policy itself, although he explained in a footnote that under don't ask, don't tell, "a person generally may not serve in the Armed Forces if he has engaged in homosexual acts, stated that he is a homosexual, or married a person of the same sex."

The court roundly rejected arguments that the policy raised important First Amendment free-speech issues for school leaders.

"Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah's Witness to display the motto 'Live Free or Die,'" Roberts wrote.

Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but
Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued three months ago.

Congress passed the law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, in 1994 — the same year that the "don't ask, don't tell" law took effect. Since then, an estimated 10,000 people have been discharged.

Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Monday that "equal access to law school, and all schools for that matter, for our recruiters is crucial to ensuring we attract a diverse and highly qualified pool of applicants."

"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," the chief justice said.

9-0 vote. After much thought, I kind of agree.

Question though...has the discriminitory 'gays banned from military' policy been challenged in court on Constitutional grounds?

[Drysdale]

How is it free speech to bar recruiters from campus?

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Heretic

9-0 vote.

8-0 vote, but thanks for playing.

Personally, I feel the whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a little....medieval. Who cares if gays want to serve in the military? It's not some kind of contagious disease. Shit, you might as well revoke their citizenship while you're at it.

[Muertissimo]

Personally, I feel the whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a little....medieval. Who cares if gays want to serve in the military? It's not some kind of contagious disease. Shit, you might as well revoke their citizenship while you're at it.

I kinda think it's just as much for their own protection as anything. You're average grunt isn't exactly a liberal, free-thinking kinda guy if you know what I mean.

[Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Wildane

8-0 vote, but thanks for playing.

Personally, I feel the whole "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a little....medieval. Who cares if gays want to serve in the military? It's not some kind of contagious disease. Shit, you might as well revoke their citizenship while you're at it.

Actually, there's a large group of people who care. The soldiers themselves. Don't ask Don't tell is a protection for the gays as much as anyone else. "Accidents" can easily happen to people who aren't liked in the military. It's very easy to slip off a high deck and possibly hit the ocean or the deck below... So you'd do well not to make enemies.

That's only 1 thing gays have to worry about. Remember, it's not what YOU and I think, it's what the other guys in the service think, and are prepared to do.

[Segis]

I'm glad the SC ruled in favor in this... if a college is taking federal money, they cannot exclude federal organizations. Meh, if these liberal academia whackjobs would wake up and realize that the military secures the freedom that allows them to bury their noses in books... wishful thinking, I know.

On the gays in the military topic, it is both a trust factor as well as a sexual issue. Most military men do not want to know another man is viewing them in a sexual manner in the shower room or in the field. That's the first thought that comes to mind when they find out there is a gay guy in the unit. Its not like we don't figure it out anyway, and they are usually ostricized for their personality differences. Something along the lines of being a "lesser man".

Though I frankly cannot see how a man could look at another man's hairy ass and find love, personally, I could really care less if the guy is gay as long as he carries his share in combat. I do care if he's after some field "recreation" because he's in an almost all-male environment - and that is what the rank-and-file will immediately assume. It is prejudicial to good order in the ranks.

The military is not here to be an equal opportunity employer for special interest groups. We're here to protect and defend the United States.

Flame away.

[Everclear]

I watched House speakers yesterday and a woman (can't remember which state) was saying that in a time where the government has indicated a great need for volunteers, over 10,000 people have been discharged from the military due to Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Additionally she indicated that more than one of these were of the precious few translators of Middle Eastern languages. She pointed out that one of the 9/11 commissions concerns was that we had too few ofthese translators and even knowing this the military is losing valuable resources because of an outdated policy that is detrimental to our national security.

I belive the argument that DaDT protects the soldiers is a bad aregument confusing cause and effect. The DADT policy reinforces the idea that gays do not belong in the military, thus encouraging a negative atmosphere. One could have made the argument that Seperate but Equal schooling was to protect blacks from whites, and it would be true to a certain degree, however integration was dangerous, but necessary to reverse the discriminatory attitudes, and in the long run schools were then safer for blacks.

I don't agree with DADT, because hiding who you are shouldn't be something that people feel compelled to do, and safety should NOT be an issue for gays, anymore than it was an issue for women. IT is the close-minded policies that help foster these attitudes and reversing them is the first step toward safe integration. WE have seen this situation time and time again, and it baffles me that people refuse to learn from past examples, always attempting to paint the current example as "Something different". It jsut goes to show that history repeats, even very recent history.

I also doubt that a man injured in combat would refuse help from a gay soldier. Gays can save lives jsut as well as straights. We are wasting a valuable and wiling resource.

[aganitte]

Segis, that'd be all well and good if you were on target. Firstly, there are so many gay men in the military that they don't need to look at heterosexual ass to get their jollies. They are organized and networked and find their own fun. How do I know this? A gay friend of mine, who is in the Navy flying Prowlers, has a whole entire network of gay naval personelle within each port of call. They organize easily through the internet. They hang out, party, socialize, all under enemy radar.

Sure, he is suspected. But he flies in an elite squadron. That carries more points and is generally not harassed by his fellow pilots who need to rely on him.

[Hormadrune]

There's no valid reason to exclude gays from military service. Period. Frankly, given the shitty jobs our armed forces have been sent to do in recent years they should take all the quality recruits they can get, regardless of fondness for man ass.

I agree with the SCOTUS on the case in the original post though. If you don't want recruiters on campus, don't take the $$.

[Segis]

Originally Posted by aganitte

A gay friend of mine, who is in the Navy flying Prowlers, has a whole entire network of gay naval personelle within each port of call. They organize easily through the internet. They hang out, party, socialize, all under enemy radar. Sure, he is suspected. But he flies in an elite squadron. That carries more points and is generally not harassed by his fellow pilots who need to rely on him.

The Navy and Air Force are much more tolerant of gays, even open ones who skirt the DADT policy. And yeah, I know what an EA-6B Prowler is - an electronic warfare platform dating from the 1960's, one of our oldest airframes still in service. We have four squadrons of them in the Corps. Its hardly an elite status, but it is a national-level strategic asset. Is your friend a stick monkey or self-loading baggage? He'd understand the reference.

Originally Posted by Horm

There's no valid reason to exclude gays from military service. Period. Frankly, given the shitty jobs our armed forces have been sent to do in recent years they should take all the quality recruits they can get, regardless of fondness for man ass.

Therein lies the rub - the good old straight boys automatically think that gays are out for their man ass. That leads to problems in the ranks. Like I said, I could really care less who serves. But I do care if I've got one gay guy who causes problems in a company of 150 guys. I'd get rid of him in the interest of unity.

[Wildane]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

Actually, there's a large group of people who care. The soldiers themselves. Don't ask Don't tell is a protection for the gays as much as anyone else. "Accidents" can easily happen to people who aren't liked in the military. It's very easy to slip off a high deck and possibly hit the ocean or the deck below... So you'd do well not to make enemies.

That's only 1 thing gays have to worry about. Remember, it's not what YOU and I think, it's what the other guys in the service think, and are prepared to do.

Yeah, they most likely said the same thing when they started allowing women into the military or into combat, but I haven't heard of any major problems caused by this.

[Muertissimo]

I belive the argument that DaDT protects the soldiers is a bad aregument confusing cause and effect. The DADT policy reinforces the idea that gays do not belong in the military, thus encouraging a negative atmosphere. One could have made the argument that Seperate but Equal schooling was to protect blacks from whites, and it would be true to a certain degree, however integration was dangerous, but necessary to reverse the discriminatory attitudes, and in the long run schools were then safer for blacks.

Then again, most school kids back in the 50's and 60's didn't carry around assault weapons and rocket launchers (unlike today's kids!). I think if they did away with DADT the cases of "accidental discharge" or "friendly fire from the backside" would go up drastically!

Oh, and they might get killed mysteriously too.

[zzapp the witch]

I don't care who you sleep with, I don't care where you come from, what you look like, what color you are or anything. If you WANT to defend your country, if your fellow soldiers can rely on you and TRUST you to do your job, and do it RIGHT, that's all I care about. Some of the best soldiers I knew were lesbians, I knew I could rely on the bulldykes more than I could the whiny prissy bitches from Puerto Rico.

I've never agreed with the military's policy on sexual orientation, hell, if you read the UCMJ and went by it, everyone who's ever had sex in any position other than missionary man on top should either be in jail or out of the service.

[Davek]

Originally Posted by zzapp the witch

I don't care who you sleep with, I don't care where you come from, what you look like, what color you are or anything.

Yet so many have been removed from your list.

[zzapp the witch]

I'm talking about servicing the country, not servicing me, honey.

[Davek]

Originally Posted by zzapp the witch

I'm talking about servicing the country, not servicing me, honey.

I thought you were servicing the country?

[korast]

Ruling makes sense, 8-0 on it pretty much tells the colleges to shut up about it too.

[Segis]

Originally Posted by Wildane

Yeah, they most likely said the same thing when they started allowing women into the military or into combat, but I haven't heard of any major problems caused by this.

Women still aren't allow in combat-arms MOS' like infantry, artillery, tanks, amtracs, etc. That only puts a nice face on the issue though, they do get involved in combat through the support and aviation units they are assigned to, but not nearly to the degree that men do.

[Axgar]

Actually, Im surprised more people don't request that gay people be allowed into the military. especially during a war I mean what better way to get rid of them legally (this is NOT the way I feel).

[Wulfhere]

Maybe they should only allow gays, women, and men who have been divorced into combat units. I can almost guarantee that this group would be elite, since no straight man who has been run through the one-sided legal system in divorce proceedings would EVER risk their life to save a mortally wounded woman to the detriment of the unit. (a common arguement against women in combat)

In all seriousness though, if a college wants government money, play by government rules. The SCOTUS made this pretty clear, and I agree.

Not so sure I am down with the whole DADT thing, but I see the supporters points. When I was in the military, anyone suspected of being gay was ostracized big-time. It wasn't the women, just the gay men.

Keep in mind what our military is made up of. Young, low to middle income non-college educated kids. They are able to be taught to be extremely proficient at what they need to do, and they do it DAMN well. If letting openly gay people into the ranks endangers the overall discipline and good order in the military, then it is probably the right choice to not permit it.

Yes they can be bigoted, yes they can be sexist, yes they may not be interested in equal rights for gay people. I am not trying to justify their homophobia, or deny it. This doesn't change the fact that the military is used to protect our country and it's interests, and if something unfair puts that at risk, then it just has to stand as being unfair.

The military is not the place or proving ground for equal rights, change it in our society first, where the initial perceptions are made, then mess with the mix in the military. Changes in the military should be reactionary to the feelings of our population and the military itself, not controversial and at risk of causing dissention in the ranks.

When enough of the country is outraged by the fact that gays aren't allowed the priveledge of serving our country openly, it will be time for change in the military rules, not until.

Wulf

[Drysdale]

Screw it... set up all-gay brigades... You lose, we send them in to rape the shit outta you at the #6 party afterward!

(note... This was/is satire)

[Foust Farseer]

Frank Herbert made a compelling argument about homosexual soldiers in....God Emperor of Dune, I think.

I wonder if campuses will allow anti-recruitment groups to post horror stories from boot camp and training hazards and other little Full Metal Jacket stories to combat military recruitment

[aganitte]

Originally Posted by Segis

The Navy and Air Force are much more tolerant of gays, even open ones who skirt the DADT policy. And yeah, I know what an EA-6B Prowler is - an electronic warfare platform dating from the 1960's, one of our oldest airframes still in service. We have four squadrons of them in the Corps. Its hardly an elite status, but it is a national-level strategic asset. Is your friend a stick monkey or self-loading baggage? He'd understand the reference.

He's the self-loading baggage dude. His vision wasn't good enough to be the pilot. And although the Prowler itself is an older plane, the technology inside it isn't that old; the main reason its kept its viability as an anti AA jammer plane. As far as it not being an elite squadron, sure, the 17 year olds get wetter in the shorts over the fighter planes, but in this day and age flying a prowler below radar at subsonic speeds is a might more dangerous than an f-18 at 10k feet with no real viable threats around. Navy guys know it, and respect it.

[AresProphet]

I love how DADT is "meant to protect the gays." As though the real problem is not the fact that your average grunt is a bigot? That's the implication; "Hey, gays. All our straight troops are homophobic hatemongers, so would you please just stay quiet? We have nothing against you, but that guy with the M-16 in his hand does."

...what's that? You're telling me I'm completely fucking wrong, that I'm dissing the US military? That I'm dishonoring the troops?

I'm not. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is. It sends a message that our military is incapable of stamping out hatred where it flares and instead resorts to pushing out those who would cause dissent by their very presence.

As long as they're putting recruits through bootcamp and breaking them down far enough on the mental level to be a trained killer (I'd call it brainwashing, because that's what it is, but someone would get upset) why don't we instill a sense of fairness and appreciation for diversity while we're at it? Or would drill sergeants get up in arms about not being able to sling "faggot" as an insult to new recruits?


Sorry if I fail to come off as anything except obstructively cynical on the issue, but DADT would be completely unacceptable in any other organization than our military. Why we permit them to let intolerance survive is beyond me. Military camraderie is supposed to go far beyond anything other than brotherhood-in-arms. Race, gender, sexual orientation, religious preferences are all supposed to get thrown out entirely in favor of working together for a common goal.

Or maybe I'm missing something? Maybe it's not all the rosy, everyday-hero picture that recruiters paint?

[zzapp the witch]

There's no honor in the Army anymore, at least, not from what I saw. Hell, I got booted for telling the truth when I was questioned about DS's coercing female recruits into sex.

Military camraderie is supposed to go far beyond anything other than brotherhood-in-arms. Race, gender, sexual orientation, religious preferences are all supposed to get thrown out entirely in favor of working together for a common goal.

That's what I thought it was before I joined. Sadly, the military was the dirtiest, most drug-infested, diseased, hate-mongering place I've ever been. I did see it turn a lot of whites into a new kind of bigot. You can only take so much before you just start to disregard certain types of people as unteachable.