Nonsense and High Ideals

Howard Bashman of How Appealing showed up at the law school Monday. He might have been there for the pizza, but he also debated Kent Greenfield about the Solomon Amendment and the fuss between the government and the law schools over this little gem of a law.

What's at stake? A few hundred million government dollars, mostly for health-related research. That's a few hundred million per school. It always comes down to money, doesn't it? (See, I'm learning something at this law school.)

The law schools don't want to allow the Department of Defense to recruit on campus. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy of the armed forces doesn't follow the schools' non-discrimination policy. The Department of Defense wants to be allowed to play with all the other recruiters (from firms, mainly). It wants the same jelly donuts and the same access to students. And if it doesn't get this access, it will take all the government's money and go home.

So the University of Michigan, for instance, would lose a gazillion dollars that the NIH currently hands the school for research into all sorts of health issues.

The debaters were skilled and the topic was interesting. I am unconvinced by the law schools' rhetoric, yet uncomfortable with the government's arrogance. Also vice versa, the law schools' arrogance and the government's rhetoric. I'm not going to cover all the arguments here, but I'll tell you about a few things that occur to me.

One, the government always attaches heavy ropes to any money it gives. It doesn't surprise me that it would try to leverage something out of the law schools this way. However, what would the government do if all the schools said, fine -- take your money? Who would do the government's research? Is it counting on the price being too high for the principle?

Two, why do the schools see it as so onerous to allow JAG recruiting when it is perfectly free to alert students to the DoD's politically incorrect hiring policies? Another mass email to the students is one too many?

Three, many law schools are at public universities. I don't have much of a problem with a private university shunning the DoD. Many private universities have religious roots and this can lead to conflict with government policies -- fair enough. But for a public university to bar the government from its doors seems inconsistent. Not that schools shouldn't voice their dissent to government policies and whatnot -- please do. Loudly and often. But to not allow JAG to recruit from the school the government writes large checks to seems disingenuous at best.

The main issues I have are that I don't believe this rises to the level of a First Amendment violation, and I don't appreciate the stigma law schools have now placed on serving with the armed forces.

When the request is reasonable, and the burden of meeting it is so low, I don't see that the schools are being harmed in any significant way. As a taxpayer I have to allow the Nazi B***ds to march down my street if they choose. Yet the law schools object to giving a military recruiter a card table and a jelly donut once a year? No, I am not equating the military with Nazis.

You don't have to agree with all military policies to be interested in serving as a military lawyer. As Bashman pointed out, the military needs good lawyers to defend soldiers accused of crimes, to counsel the military on policies, to guide the system from within. The system is in need of some decent guidance. This is a form of public service, to be done for the public good. Is it wise for the law schools to tell their students, in so many words, that this is an inappropriate place to look for work?

Neither side is being reasonable. The government is on one side, academia on the other, with lots of nonsense and high ideals in between. I suppose reasonableness is too much to ask.

Comments

[PatAncestor]

Congratulations on clear thinking, willingness to state things without a simplistic regard to pleasing others. I'm sure that you wrote the same way in the rejected draft memo, so it must be your professor's fault that it came back. My opinion.

[Jill]

I admit I have trouble tying scientific research dollars-- one part of the school-- to recruiting in another part of the school. My trouble, though, stems not even so much from this particular issue but from the fact that research funding (and results reporting) has gotten increasingly, painfully partisan. Just as I'm OK with the NEA funding art (or "art") I may not appreciate, NIH research dollars (IMO) shouldn't be predicated on any one person's/administration's/party's agenda.

In a strict sense, the two may not be tied together. But I'm uneasy on the entire topic, and don't have good lines drawn mentally to differentiate.

[Zuska]

My school is, I believe, the first named plaintiff of this litigation. The student body at my school is notoriously diverse, with a much higher than average percentage of gay students. As a result (without thinking too deeply about chicken and egg questions), the school is Pretty Darned Mobilized over this issue.

the JAG recruiters came a few weeks ago, and I had assumed that there was no way in HELL that a student from our school would EVER interview - not b/c they didn't want a job, but b/c they would have blood thrown on their fur ... or whatever is the equivalent.

I was wrong. The recruiters' time was full. People who are not concerned about the policy are, in fact, going for the jobs. I saw some recruiters around town, and I felt bad for them. They are just doing their jobs, and they are coming into a hostile environment - and they're not a *uniform* - they're people.

But I don't think it's about giving them a donut -- the ABA's policy is such that no law school should be allowing any notoriously discriminatory employer on a campus. The fact that the government has tehse schools by the balls (we are private, but connected to an undergraduate, and everybody would lose funding if we refused the gov't) in a way that no one else can. They can force schools to violate their own accepted policies by twisting said balls, and it's all rooted in hate and fear.

I do not want to just turn my head from blatant discrimination for No Good Reason (or, shall we say, a lack of reasonableness) because if I don't, i won't have a law school anymore.

one final comment on public v. private - i think all private schools end up just as dependent on federal monies as public schools do. Further, most public schools are state schools - not federal schools. the funding comes from the state, and the school is seen as an entity of the state.

[Citations]

There's no doubt the government has the schools in a most uncomfortable grip. As I say, I'm not sure that wouldn't be a threat they'd hate to carry out; nevertheless, it has put the schools in a painful bind. And yes, of course, private schools are in the same world of hurt as public schools. The difference is that, at least in theory, the private schools have the option of shunning all public funding. In reality, who's going to make that gamble?

I didn't directly address the discrimination issue above, merely the squabbling resulting from it. If the military decided to be reasonable, aside from hell freezing over and pigs flying we would see the law suit become moot. It's ironic because the military has been at the forefront of dealing with racial discrimination; you can be purple or green or polka-dotted in the military, as long as you're a straight male.