March 7, 2006


Campus Military Enrolling Upheld
High Court Backs Aid-Recruiting Tie
(John P. Gregg, 3/07/06, Valley News)

VLS President and Dean Geoffrey Shields said the court's ruling gives “great deference” to congressional powers, under the Constitution, to raise an army but short shrift to VLS and other opponents' arguments that the dispute was both a free speech issue and an important statement about the rights of gays and lesbians. [...]

“We think it's a speech issue, but the Supreme Court looks at it differently,” said Shields, who estimated the longstanding policy by VLS to ban military recruiters on campus costs the school about $500,000 in potential grants each year.

Student loans are unaffected.

“There is really no discussion whatsoever about the rights of gays and lesbians, and how that class is treated. They really take a complete pass on that,” Shields added.

Under the “don't ask, don't tell” policy, gays are allowed to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Shields also noted that in the ruling, justices said that Congress could directly demand military access on campus, even without the threat of losing federal money.

“If the stakes are raised, if the government passes the law saying ‘you have to do it,' then we'll do it,” Shields said of allowing military recruiters at VLS.

Congress should not allow students to spend federal money at such institutions.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 7, 2006 12:50 PM

only $500,000? get that from the Saudi's, like Harvard did.

Posted by: ic at March 7, 2006 2:40 PM

Under the don't ask, don't tell policy, gays are allowed to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

Actually, gays are forbidden to join or remain in the military. DADT just says that they won't be kicked out if they lie about it.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 7, 2006 3:20 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the collective law school faculties of America thought they were going to win this case, or at least had a good chance. Instead they got whitewashed 8-0. Chief Justice Roberts tossed in the "and your little dog too!" clause, saying that Congress could force even schools that hypothetically don't get Federal money, to admit recruiters.

How were they so wrong?

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at March 7, 2006 3:51 PM

Bob, they were so wrong because nothing in their lives propared them for a world in which their views weren't the received wisdom. This is so much fun. The liberal stranglehold is ever so slowly loosening on college campuses.

I really didn't think I'd ever live to see the day and I blame George Bush for it.

Posted by: erp at March 7, 2006 5:03 PM

These law professors do not perceive how foolish they look in maintaining that they know what the law requires and 8 justices of the Supreme Court have declared that they don't know what they are talking about.
As another matter, since it was Congress that, via legislation, determined the armed forces' position as to homosexuals, why have not the law schools and colleges tried to bar representatives of Congress from their campuses (campi?)?

Posted by: GER at March 7, 2006 5:08 PM

GER: Because Congressional staff jobs are very prestigious and then lead to jobs that are very lucrative. Any top-tier law school that put its students at a disadvantage getting those jobs would quickly lose students.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 7, 2006 5:34 PM

OJ, Is VLS still in Royalton Vt.? If so, and if the founder, Dr. Moriarity(?) has any continuing influence, assuming he's not in jail, I wouldn't highlight a VLS Dean as representitive of general legal opinion.

Posted by: Genecis at March 7, 2006 6:19 PM

South Royalton: the only town in America with a Law School but without a stop light.

He's in jail.

Posted by: oj at March 7, 2006 6:24 PM

Those who can't litigate, teach.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 7, 2006 7:35 PM

Congress enacted "Don't Ask"--not the military. If the faculty had the courage of their convictions, they would refuse to accept any Congressional funds.

I said "if".

Posted by: Noel at March 7, 2006 8:08 PM