Military moolah

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts that universities receiving federal money cannot bar military recruiters from coming to campus in the name of free speech if they disagree with military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That decision was a tough one, but it was ultimately the correct one. \nThe case, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, sought to overturn the Solomon Amendment, a provision Congress adopted that constricts all federal dollars from going to universities that bar military recruiters. A number of law schools have claimed that, because they prohibit businesses that discriminate in hiring practices from recruiting on their campuses, they could also legally bar the military, which many people believe patently discriminates against gays and lesbians who are open about their sexual orientation. The law schools sued, claiming the Solomon Amendment violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and free association and conscripted them into supporting a policy they don't agree with.\nWe can certainly sympathize, as we don't agree with the policy either. But the problem is the military isn't exactly like other employers, and speech is not the same as conduct. \nThe Court rightfully points out that Congress is invested with the power to provide a common defense and raise and maintain the military, and that power is "arguably greater because universities are free to decline the federal funds." The Solomon Amendment, Roberts writes, gives universities a simple choice: Either allow the military recruiters or give up your federal dollars. \nThis sort of quid pro quo is an understandably back-handed way for Congress to get its way, but it is also a way that has been regularly upheld as constitutional given Congress' power. Furthermore, the Court said the Solomon Amendment doesn't prohibit what the school can say about the military, only what they can do about the military.\nThe logical silver lining to this decision is that Roberts readily accepted the notion that universities can protest the military all they want -- all they legally have to do is provide them with the same opportunities they provide other employers. In fact, the Court acknowledged that the school can go as far as to put signs up on the bulletin board outside the recruiting room or help organize student protests. But in the end, the military must be afforded the same opportunity, by constitutional enforcement of Congress.\nWith this case, the opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" is clearly growing. Even though the law schools had a flimsy case to begin with, it was important to bring it before the Court. On this page, we have long expressed our fundamental disagreement with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and we fervently believe the law schools that disagree with the military's policy should continue to protest and petition. That's the kind of free speech claim we can whole-heartedly get behind.