I’ve been mulling over _Jon’s post (of We Swear) on “College campus’ ban of military recruiters”. There were several reactions that came up for me as soon as I read it. The first and most immediate one was anger with the news story. Imagine what would have happened to women’s sports if the federal government had not threatened to cut off funds to schools receiving federal money, and not using at least 25% of it to go towards women’s athletics. Women's sports wouldn’t exist! As it is, Title IX has never achieved the parity with men's sports that it sought. However, women’s athletics have come a long way since the days of no women’s sports in schools.
Imagine if colleges had said to the federal government, we’ll take your money, but you know what you can do with your ideas of equality.
Well, his post was compelling enough to make me want to do research on this issue. Below are the basic facts that I culled from various sources including the Thomas Register, which is the Library of Congress’ archival repository for current and past legislation. That way I filter out the middlemen (Sorry _Jon, but just because a guy at the Washington Post says trust me on this, doesn’t me I do.) So in my research I culled some basic and very important relevant facts:
- The policy being used as a pretext to push the military off campus is the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy implemented by the military in 1993.
- The Solomon Amendment, requires all institutions, not just educational, who receive federal grants, to give limited access to military recruiters, so they can make unobtrusive presentations (in the form of pamphlets being left behind or visits by recruiters) to people who may be interested in a career in the military. This is done with the consent and approval of the school.
- The was passed under a number of laws in 1995 and extended to educational institutions in 1997. when interim rules were established.
- The final institutional rules were implemented in 1998.
Hmmm, I wonder who was President during this period?
I have several arguments to make on against the ban:
First, it was not until recently, with our government actively involved in a war, that this became an issue and recruiters and their pamphlets were banned from campuses across the country. Colleges still continued to use and accept federal grants and aid. in spite of violating the Solomon Amendment. During my tenure as undergraduate student government president from 1995 to 1997, this was an issue for some students (the anarchists and extreme left) and faculty. Administrators on my campus were indifferent because they relegated military recruiters to the same space credit card representatives were given at the edge of our campus.
Second, the overriding issue that I see is the denial of Free Speech. It’s OK for students, faculty and staff to openly object to the war, but let one ROTC or military recruiter come on campus with their recruiting table and pamphlets and all hell breaks loose.
So what I see in this fight, is more than just a simple college ban, it is college staff and administrators systematically limiting dialogue or free speech and denying students’ the exposure to a differing point of view.
In the extended entry you will find a letter a former mentee of mine (and an impending law school graduate) will be sending to the Washington Post and New York Times. His argument is different from mine. Weigh in if you wish, I’ve posted my 2 cents on this issue.
Dear Editor:
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the dishonesty and hypocrisy surrounding the jihad against military recruiters on campuses led by [on campus] leftists. While some critics of military recruiting practices may be motivated solely by their concern for the welfare of LGBTQ [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer] students, it is not entirely unreasonable to regard the campaign against the DADT ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"] policy as little more than a smokescreen for the Left's rabid hatred of the American military. Having failed to stop the Iraq war with their heated propaganda and Chomskyite conspiracy theories, leftist opponents of the military are now venting their frustration on military recruiters on campuses.
In their zeal to attack the military, opponents of DADT ignore the hypocrisy of their "principled" stand against discrimination. Law school administrators condemn military recruiters for promoting discrimination against LGBTQ students. However, these same law schools routinely engage in systematic racial discrimination, euphemistically termed "Affirmative Action," against Caucasian and Asian students [several cases still pending against a number of Law Schools]. Where is the condemnation of this blatant discrimination?
While leftist critics of military recruiters are correct to regard DADT as a seriously flawed policy, these critics have no right to condemn or banish military recruiters while promoting a far more widespread and damaging form of censorship and discrimination themselves. Taking a truly principled stand against unreasonable discrimination is laudable. Exploiting a flimsy pretext to wage a hypocritical crusade against the military, however, is not.
MJP
No problem, I don't really trust them either.
With regard to writing to the Editor -- That's what they want. They want people to react so they can hold up all the letters and yell; "Look! We've got Readers!!!" It doesn't matter if the response is positive or negative. As long as they get a response. Just like a 5 year old.
And those papers should be treated the same as a mis-behaving 5 yo - smacked over the nose with a rolled up newspaper while saying "No!" in a firm voice. Oh wait, that's the dog. Hmm.... Gotta think....
Posted by: _Jon at May 3, 2005 07:15 PM America's first lady said what she witnessed showed that passions are running high among Palestinians and Israelis.
"The United States will do what they can in this process," she said, urging both sides to work for peace.