WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.In my opinion, this was such an obvious ruling I can't believe the case was even in court; it is nice to see that the judges agreed unanimously that the whole premise was ridiculous. First of all, from a simple common sense approach: If you accept money from somewhere, that money has strings attached. If you wish to become a completely private school which does not receive any federal aid, nobody is stopping you. But since you're not doing so, you have to take the strings along with the money.
Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law school professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, which was unanimous.
Furthermore, as Roberts noted,
"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," he wrote.I'm curious what people think about this one. I do recall the liberal-leaning Jesters agreeing that such a ruling was what should happen.
According to today's Washington Post, the Supreme Court appears poised to uphold the law stating that academic institutions cannot ban military recruiters because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and continue to receive federal funding.Croaky:
Having said all that, I agree with you that it should be a trade-off for public institutions: either take the government's money and allow them to recruit, or take the stand that their practices are discriminatory and find funding elsewhere.Well put. I imagine there won't be much of an outcry over this ruling; though if there is, I'd be very scared to be a liberal. If rhetoric should trump common sense even in such an obvious case, it will show just how far the far-left has gone. We'll have to wait and see...
Seems reasonable to this liberal. Hard to see how "refusing to allow recruiters on campus" qualifies as free speech.ReplyDelete
As much as I'd love to keep away army folk because of their discrimination, the court's right on this one.ReplyDelete
' If you accept money from somewhere, that money has strings attached.'ReplyDelete
I am a liberal, too, and I can't see how the court could have ruled any other way.
We should remember this as we push for government funds for orthodox day schools and yeshivot.
I don't know why the court accepted it. It's a softball case...none of the lower courts ruled differently, did they? Seems like they just wanted to set up a nice juicy one for Roberts to bat around for a bit before handing down the obvious ruling...ReplyDelete
Charlie - Good point.ReplyDelete
GT - I was wondering that also; it could be that this was to make the point unequivocal that government money means that the government has certain rights attached.
Yeah, the thing is, that seems unnecessarily redundant. They turn down these kinds of issues all the time. The lower courts ruled, and their precedence in the absence of a Supreme Court ruling is just as important in terms of future cases. I am sure I'm missing something, I just can't figure out what it is.ReplyDelete