The faculty of Yale law school has for two years waged a running battle to exclude military recruiters from campus because of the Clinton-era “Don’t ask, don’t tell (don’t harrass, don’t pursue)” policy. That stance put them across the table from the feds, armed by the 1996 Solomon Amendment, which permits government to deny federal grants to universities which discriminate against military recruiters at on campus job fairs, among other things.
Apparently citing the Hammurabic code as a precedent, the law school argued that it was OK to discriminate against the military, since they discriminated againts gays. And by the way they’d like to keep the money. A federal appeals court, quoting English common sense, if not common law, told the faculty that no, they couldn’t have their cake and eat it too.
(That) did not lessen the ruling’s sting for gay rights advocates like Sara Jeruss, a third-year law student and the co-chairwoman of OutLaws, an organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students at the law school.
“We’re disappointed by it,” Ms. Jeruss said recently in an interview. “We obviously wish the government wasn’t forcing discrimination on us.”
Obviously no one at Yale is being forced to discriminate – well, apart maybe from discriminating whether it would be better forgo their principles or $350 million – rather, the military will now have the opportunity to try and convince people who may not agree with Ms. Jeruss that military law is a good and noble calling. Or – and here’s a wild notion – maybe challenge the system from the inside.
It’s risky of course: People smart enough to graduate from Yale law may find themselves subtly refashioned into one of those knuckle-dragging killbots we hear so much about. But that’s the chance you take.
One of the lead professors in the suit all but conceded defeat:
“We had a choice, which is we could continue to exclude the military, and Yale University would have lost $300 million per year,” Professor Burt said in an interview here recently. “We’re not going to bring the medical school and the whole science enterprise to its knees.”
There was a third choice, of course. They could have hewed to their principles and tapped into that $22 billion endowment for at least a few years.
You’d have thought it would be hard for lawyers trained in the US Constitution to argue that only certain kinds of free speech should be protected at one of our most prestigious universities. Or that it’s better within the halls of academia to limit debate on a controversial issue to the approved narrative rather than to extend it.
But it wasn’t as as hard apparently as turning down all that hard cash.
“You’d have thought it would be hard for lawyers trained in the US Constitution to argue that only certain kinds of free speech should be protected at one of our most prestigious universities.”
Not so hard to believe if you went through a PC factory school. Apparently some pigs are more equal than others.
Lex,
They might have driven off the military, and even renounced religious studies, but as long as they still worship at the altar of the Almighty Dollar, they’ll toe the line and repent their sins…..
Seems strange that Yale (along with other Ivy leagues such as Harvard and Princeton) were established by conservatives in the 1600′s ,in large part , to train ministers.
alternatively, one might consider that they might just be a bunch of dicks, although a case could be made that they are whores….
discuss amongst yourselves.
Here’s a thought. If they took just a small percentage of the interest income from the school’s endowment fund they could pay the tuition for every student attending Yale, undergraduate and graduate. Do they really need the extra $300 million?
Made me laugh, MM!
Dang! What is their problem? I went to a school (Ga. Tech) at which it was compulsory for everyone to attend ROTC classes, at least for the first two years. It was not onerous, was an easy one-hour A, and did me some good, I think. Among other things, I learned that a woolen uniform is never the same after going through a washing machine.
Can one of you fine peoples who was educated at a good school explain the whole endowment thing to me? Lots of schools have them, and lots of them are in the 10 figure range.
What are they used for? (If I had gone to one of them aforementioned schools, I wouldn’t have dangled that participle).
Seriously, what does Yale do with their $22B besides use it to make more money?
Thanks in advance.
N
at a private school, endowment means they have a lot of dead alumni who died rich and didn’t want their kids to necessarily live rich.
at the service academies (you DID ask for someone from a “good school”), endowment means something completely different.
They can stand on their ivy-halled principles, spout their rhetoric and puff up their chests but the bottom line is – the bottom line.
It’s ironic that they believe they’ve had discrimination forced upon them, when in reality they have been the ones discriminating against a person’s free choice to serve his/her country with honor, dignity and an Ivy League education. Further evidence that our hallowed halls of higher education are getting further and further removed from any version of reality.
I may be a bit slow, what with being an 1110 type and all, not to mention having been a working biologist for some years, but I am still a bit confused by the whole transgendered thing. In my experience, once one gets higher on the evolutionary cladogram than, well, earthworms, either one is male or female (I have read of cases of mammalian hermaphrodity, but it is normally a genetic error). Hopefully someone of quicker wit or broader experience can explain transgendered?
The Snake eaters were right. Once you get’em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow!
Holding the financial club makes a lot of sense to me. How about a law that says something like …”No Federal funds shall be made available to any State, or county, or political subdivision thereof which is found by the Secretary of Defense to have discriminated against the Department of Defense, or any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, or the dependents of any member of the Armed Forces, for a period of two years…” And, then, just to make sure the lesson is learned, let’s make them requalify by showing what steps they have taken to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.
Do you think that might make jerks like the film commissioner in San Francisco and the airport administrator in Oakland think twice before they let their screwed up political agenda lead them into doing something really stupid?
Not too likely to happen, but wouldn’t it be sweet?
I’m saddened and very troubled to say we’re starting to see some of the same locally.
In New Brunswick, a group of students calling themselves Students Coalition Against War has formed to spearhead a movement to keep military recruiters off-campus. It might be one thing to provide some “alternate perspectives” during those employment fairs held at universities, but they have a lot of nerve (and a lot less brains) to suggest that the Armed Forces has any less right to be there than any other potential employer. Fortunately, so far (at least in the Maritimes) it looks like the universities and school boards don’t appear willing to have much to do with the notion. And its nice to see some sanity previal in the media. At least here.
Shadow, I think it’s one of those “if you have to ask” things…
If we’re going to have a *real* Republic, the citizens of the elite classes need to step up and train themselves to be officers in armed forces of the armed forces of said Republic.
It’s very bad if those doing the fighting, those doing the ruling, and those doing the voting, are not at least somewhat familiar with each other.
Dammit.
Um, I meant to write “officers in armed forces of said Republic.”
Sorry about the extra words.
… they have a lot of nerve (and a lot less brains) to suggest that the Armed Forces has any less right to be there than any other potential employer.
The Armed Forces is different from any other employer that I can think of, though, in that, once they “hire” you, you can never quit. Your body is theirs for the duration.
Sure you can quit. At the end of your enlistment or minimum tour length.
The truly motivated can walk out the door just by discovering previously unacknowledged attractions to members of their same sex.
“Sure you can quit. At the end of your enlistment or minimum tour length.
The truly motivated can walk out the door just by discovering previously unacknowledged attractions to members of their same sex.”
LOL
Kathy, so we will allow all other employers for whom life is about payment for a supply of labour to produce a product or service and hence create profit in the door. To convince, if they can, those that they feel will be a good match to their endeavours to join them.
But the Armed Forces, an enterprise for whom its all about payment for a supply of labour to assist both domestically and abroad in times of crisis and disaster and protect the very society and country that provides the framework, stability and foundation that allows those other employers to do their thing … they shouldn’t be given the same opportunity to convince, if they can, those that might be a good match to their endeavours?
You know, once upon a time, the military, if not a noble profession … well, maybe that’s exactly what it was. My grandfather served in WWI, my father in WW2. Other than that, I have no real military connection … yet I would never be ashamed to speak of their service. On the contrary, I am proud that they did their “part”. Why is it otherwise today?
And if you go into something knowing you are making a commitment for a set period of time …. yeah, you’re right, that’s just wrong.