Gay Patriot Header Image

A Victory For Military Recruiters

The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld a federal law that forces colleges and universities to permit military recruiting on campus, despite the schools’ objections to the Pentagon ban on openly gay people serving in the armed forces.

By a vote of 8 to 0, the court upheld the Solomon Amendment, which permits the denial of federal funding to schools that do not allow military recruiters the same access given to all other job recruiters. But in ruling that schools must provide the military the same access to students as they would for any other recruiters, the justices noted that schools are still free to protest their presence on campus…

I happened to read this in today’s Washington Post and wanted to post it here. This case always seemed like a no-brainer to me. Despite attempts by antiwar activists to portray it as a case of free speech, linking this with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was a huge mistake. In my view SCOTUS was spot on in its decision written by new Chief Justice John Roberts:

Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military’s congressionally mandated employment policy. . . . Nothing about recruiting suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters and nothing in the Solomon Amendment restricts what the law schools may say about the military’s policies…In this case, FAIR has attempted to stretch a number of First Amendment doctrines well beyond the sort of activities these doctrines protect.

It’s very simple: if you take the King’s shilling be prepared to do his bidding. No one has forced these schools to accept Federal funding and they may forgo it for any reason and at any time. What they may not do is unfairly limit access to military recruiters while keeping their chubby paws out for the next taxpayer dollar. Whether they accept Federal dollars or not, those opposed to the ban on known homosexuals serving in the military are free to protest and make their views heard. Such is their right and if the Solomon Amendment had sought to limit that I would have supported it being struck down. Yet it was never an issue.

What is surprising to me is the fact that SCOTUS ruled unanimously on this issue, including a suggestion of Congress’ power that I find chilling and unconstitutional:

So thorough was the court’s rejection of FAIR’s arguments that it ruled Congress could have achieved equal access not only indirectly, by threatening a funding cutoff, but also directly, through legislation based on its constitutional power to raise military forces. In fact, the court suggested in passing, even colleges and universities that do not receive any federal funding could be compelled by Congress to allow military recruiters.

“Congress’s power in this area is broad and sweeping,” Roberts wrote, “and there is no dispute in this cases that it includes the authority to require campus access to military recruiters.”

So far, however, the government has chosen the more indirect approach of the Solomon Amendment.

Such a move by Congress I would oppose most vigorously because this is an unacceptable abridgement of rights. People and institutions objecting to the military have a right to disassociate themselves from it, even if I find such a view repugnant. The only time I could see allowing such would be in a state of war with the use of the draft. At all other times, not at all.

Although I strongly disagree with the WaPo editors on the necessity of the Solomon Amendment, I must endorse their call to Now Repeal the Ban.

Share

61 Comments

  1. I’m wondering if Ginsberg’s willingness to sign on with this unanimous decision is in any way connected with the recent story about her dozing off in court? What I mean is: Is she having problems? Does she have less fight in her, right now? (I have no idea.)

    On the other hand, I know how the liberal Court justices love to extend federal power. (the Kelo decision; the surprising decision where Court liberals were AGAINST medical marijuana on grounds of upholding federal power; etc.). AGJ, in light of your concluding bit, could this be another instance?

    But I must say, I think Congress does Constitutionally have the power to raise armies and, with a volunteer army, that has to mean the power to recruit. I don’t have a problem with compelled “access to recruiters” because the draft, if that’s ultimately the only alternative, would be a far more sweeping and immoral abridgement of fundamental rights.

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - March 7, 2006

  2. I am not really all that troubled by the decision, although I am surprised that Ginsberg and Stevens and Souter signed on to the whole thing with no concurring or dissenting in part opinions.

    But I think the draft is probably a main motivation for that line of argument.

    Comment by just me — March 7, 2006 @ 7:37 pm - March 7, 2006

  3. “If you take the King’s shilling be prepared to do his bidding.” that’s a scary statement for a country that’s a democracy. My tax dollars go to many things; some I agree with and some I don’t agree with. Why should money that comes from the government come with such an un-related requirement, espeically since the goverment is having trouble meeting its recruiting goals. Perhaps we are seeing the first steps in the return to the draft.

    What else will the government require that is deemed legal? Lists of students and the organizations to which they belong? Medical records of students? Library records? Hmmmm…

    Seems to me that the point of educational grants to these instutions are based on the taxes paid by the students / their families and the idea that our nation is better off with an educated populace, not to build up the military.

    Comment by Kevin — March 7, 2006 @ 7:56 pm - March 7, 2006

  4. The only time I could see allowing such would be in a state of war with the use of the draft.

    That’s what they’re talking about.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 7, 2006 @ 8:41 pm - March 7, 2006

  5. Kevin, if you dislike the government- or the administration- you’re more than welcome to NOT accept federal tax dollars for any reason. If you choose to take money from the government, you also choose to accept any strings the government attaches- just like with any other loan. Don’t like the strings? Don’t take the money. How is this in any way an infringement of democracy, other than the fact that it ends the “freedom” to leech off of the public dollar while whining about how much you hate the state that funds you?
    If you dislike and fear the military so much, isn’t it hypocritical of you to allow yourself to be defended by them? Shouldn’t you be somewhere else?

    Comment by DaveP. — March 7, 2006 @ 8:44 pm - March 7, 2006

  6. Oh yeah- Kev, if you’re concerned about the return of the draft you’d better vote Republican- the main proponents of a new draft are all Democrats…

    Comment by DaveP. — March 7, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - March 7, 2006

  7. #2

    although I am surprised that Ginsberg and Stevens and Souter signed on to the whole thing with no concurring or dissenting in part opinions.

    Well the reality is that they can’t, if they want to be honest.

    #3

    Why should money that comes from the government come with such an un-related requirement,

    What’s unrelated?

    espeically since the goverment is having trouble meeting its recruiting goals.

    Why is it that the liberals are the only ones who see this?

    Perhaps we are seeing the first steps in the return to the draft.

    Here we go again. Is it time to play that fear card again?

    What else will the government require that is deemed legal? Lists of students and the organizations to which they belong? Medical records of students? Library records?

    Does your tinfoil hat come with a ratchet system so you can loosen it up? Some of that oxygen you’re stealing isn’t making it to where it needs to go.

    Seems to me that the point of educational grants to these instutions are based on the taxes paid by the students / their families and the idea that our nation is better off with an educated populace, not to build up the military.

    One thing’s for sure, it ain’t for liberal professors to indoctrinate the students. Nor is it for professors to sit on their ass writing meaningless screed and defend the 9/11 attacks while other people do the job they were hired to do.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 7, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - March 7, 2006

  8. The gay concentration camps don’t exist, and the Democrats (no one else) are the authors of all recent draft bills and the ones who want to bring it back – but Kevin isn’t fazed by reality.

    Comment by Calarato — March 7, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - March 7, 2006

  9. 5: Let’s get back to the real topic…it’s not just the question of military recruitment. It’s the point of whether or not organizations that engage in sexual orientation discrimination be allowed to recruit in environments. Whether they be military or otherwise.

    It’s the same thing that’s covered in so many issues here….conservative (and sometimes ultra-conservative) values take higher priority than sexual orientation, so its ok for gays lesbians to take a back seat in that regard. And yes, I’d approve a little more of defense of the country if it really meant defending us and not trying to set up false democracies while we we stay so cozy in bed with non-democratic regimes to keep a thick, black slimy liquid flowing to the US.

    6: Really? not one Republican/conservative at all, anywhere is advocating the draft? hmmmmmmm

    Comment by Kevin — March 7, 2006 @ 10:07 pm - March 7, 2006

  10. 9 – Fine. Let’s not be specific to military recruitment. Let’s not even be specific to government funds.

    Universities frequently receive gifts from alumni. Many gifts (particularly smaller ones) come without strings. But many have some strings: from a directed gift to the psychology department to a requirement that the funds are used to build something to be named after the donor’s cat, Fluffy.

    The university is free to accept or reject the funds with the attached strings. What the university CANNOT do is take the money and then use it in a way contrary to the requirements.

    My requirements weren’t discriminatory enough? Fine.

    My mom recently was reading an article talking about unusual college scholarships. Some of the categories: left-handers (discriminating against right-handers), Native Americans (discriminating against all other ethnic groups) and decendents of Holocaust survivors who are entering the hard sciences (discriminating against…um…everyone else).

    Students can’t take the money and then choose not to fulfill the requirements. It isn’t fair.

    If universities don’t want to let recruiters on campus, all they have to do is refuse the money. Since they choose not to do that, complain to them, not the government.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 7, 2006 @ 11:10 pm - March 7, 2006

  11. 10: So by that reasoning, then if the military discriminated against minorities, it’d still be ok for them to recruit?

    You folks on this board spend an awful lot of time trying to justify why its OK for conservatives to discriminate.

    Comment by Kevin — March 7, 2006 @ 11:26 pm - March 7, 2006

  12. 11: Actually Kevin, the flaw in your argument is viewing the military as a private organization seeking access to the university while holding a position contrary to their policies. If such were the case my view would probably differ on the matter, as a matter of law at least. Instead, what we have here is the United States Government requiring access to recruiters from its military as a condition for these universities to receive funding from its coffers. It matters not what the objection the universities have to this, they simply cannot refuse to demand such funding without also accepting the strings attached. They are free to protest DADT, to work for its repeal, etc., but not to use it as the basis for taking money they are not entitled to without fulfilling the requirement the US Government sets in order to receive it. Finally, the policy you object to isn’t a matter of the military independently deciding to discriminate against homosexuals, but one which is codified into law by the United States Congress. This was not the proper way to fight DADT and I’m glad it was struck down.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — March 7, 2006 @ 11:55 pm - March 7, 2006

  13. 1: I disagree except during time of war when the draft has been activated.

    9: conservative (and sometimes ultra-conservative) values take higher priority than sexual orientation, so its ok for gays lesbians to take a back seat in that regard

    On the contrary, what the universities to is irrelevant to the issue SCOTUS decided in this case. Let’s turn this around and say that the Congress passes a law making receiving Federal dollars by “family planning” groups contingent upon their not prohibiting the distribution of contraception or access to abortions. Is this legal? Is it consitutional? Absolutely. The ethics, morality, prudence, etc. of such a law is immaterial to whether Congress can attach such strings to money it doles out. It most certainly can which is exactly what the States discovered a long time ago.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — March 8, 2006 @ 12:03 am - March 8, 2006

  14. 11 – The first answer is no, discrimination is not okay.

    The second answer is that, even if the military discriminated against minorities (or even if they did something far more heinous), colleges would still have to make a choice about taking the money or taking a stand.

    But you are right. Discrimination is utterly unacceptable when practiced by my government. That’s why I would like us to get rid of the DADT policy. (If you are interested in changing the DADT policy, I recommend ColoradoPatriot’s series that he just finished up. They have a clear outline of what we must show and what kinds of arguments we must make if we want to change it.)

    And I would love it if a university said “because of the DADT policy, we will not accept money from the US government and then will not be beholden to them to the extent we are required to have recruiters on campus”.

    But they don’t say that*. And they won’t. Because this case was a selfish, self-promoting exercise by childish people who want to have their cake and eat it too and hate the military regardless of any discrimination.

    *For the record, the only college I’ve even heard of refusing government money was a Christian college that did not want to give the government any say in how the college runs things.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 8, 2006 @ 12:05 am - March 8, 2006

  15. I think that most people here oppose DADT. When it comes right down to it, this isn’t even *about* that.

    What I’d like to know… since it’s the Congress in charge of the laws that keep gays from military service… do those law schools *also* ban recruitment from Congress? Do the law schools reject recruiting for other government service than the military?

    Ultimately the military only does what the Congress tells it to do.

    I’ve heard quite a few military people say that ending DADT would be worth it just to watch those Ivy League schools squirm around until they found some other reason to exclude recruiters.

    The one thing they can be sure not to do, is give up the money on principle.

    Comment by Synova — March 8, 2006 @ 12:21 am - March 8, 2006

  16. I wonder why liberals are falling over themselves about the military on college campi, but they couldn’t give a good royal goddamn about Taliban reps attending Yale.

    And yes, I’d approve a little more of defense of the country if it really meant defending us and not trying to set up false democracies while we we stay so cozy in bed with non-democratic regimes to keep a thick, black slimy liquid flowing to the US.

    I’m still waiting, after all these years, for a libtard to show me why we’re not getting any of this “thick, black slimy liquid” that they swear we are.
    I double-dog dare ya. An’ if you ain’t got the balls to share it here, send it to TGCblog-at-gmail.com

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 8, 2006 @ 5:00 am - March 8, 2006

  17. Bruce, why do you accept the financial-obligation argument for military recruitment (The Solomon Act), but are “chilled” by Robert’s opinion that Congress could even go farther? If anything, I would have assumed just the opposite perspective

    The Constitution explicitly enumerates Congress’s power to establish militia(s) and declare War. Those powers validate conscription, probably the only exception to “liberty” in the Constitution. The Founders obviously thought defense of the nation should be able to “trump” most other considerations. It’s the only power which can be construed as “forced labor,” a notion otherwise wholly foreign to a liberal democracy. Since the Constitution is univocal about it, why would Roberts’ opinion “chill” you? He was just pointing out the powers’ existence.

    Frankly, I’m surprised the Court decided the Solomon Amendment unanimously. Where were the civil libertarians? Obviously, freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Certain exigencies, especially those that could or would cause harm, have a mitigating effect. But since when do economic ties (not control, just ties) justify trumping freedom of speech? From a strict interpretation, I think the schools who don’t want discriminating propaganda spread within their domain offer a compelling claim. Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to hear it. Economic factors shouldn’t even be a factor. Just because I own stock in Pfitzer doesn’t entail my right to speak; as a matter of policy, almost all corporations will allow most stockholders comment in a prescribed manner at Annual Meetings, but that is not a shareholder’s “right,” just a common practice.

    Indeed, Roberts was right on target with the whole recruitment issue. It’s an enumerated power. As such, it’s the Constitution Articles that trump all other considerations, economic included; “economic” features per se are not relevant, because the direct issue concerns Congress’s enumerated power, and thus any and all kinds of recruitment is an inferred logical extension of that power. It seems really straightforward to me.

    Comment by Stephen — March 8, 2006 @ 5:47 am - March 8, 2006

  18. 17 – Stephen, please explain how the universities’ free speech is limited.

    They don’t have to agree with the military (on anything, not just DADT). They are not stifled in anything they say. They just have to let the recruiters on campus.

    And your Pfizer analogy is backwards.

    You could write to Pfizer and say that you will only buy (or continue to hold) their stock if they do X or say they believe in Y, regardless of how unfair and arbitrary X and Y are. They are free to accept your money and your conditions or to refuse both.

    Or look at it another way.

    Imagine you are against animal testing and you’ve just become aware that Phizer is for it. Are you required to continue your financial support or are you allowed to remove it as an example of your free speech?

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 8, 2006 @ 8:29 am - March 8, 2006

  19. Back O/T for a second… I can’t help reading in between the lines that both Kevin’s and Stephen’s comments hold a general antipathy toward the military, the military’s need to recruit educated soliders and officers, and this country’s highest responsibility: to protect and defend the US and her citizens.

    I think that antipathy toward the military is at the root of the education elite’s opposition to military recruitment.

    We see it here in Michigan, here in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor public schools ban military recruiters from high school events, ban the depiction of military service in posters, flyers, brochures on school grounds, and have tried to ban the entry of men in uniform from high school athletic events.

    Military recruiters on U of M’s campus need to have a permit to come on campus, participate in events, or set-up information booths at events.

    Just like there is a liberal bias in the MSM, there is a bias –probably stemming from “peace” protests during the VN War– against the military at some colleges and it needs to be ferreted out, identified as unpatriotic as it truly is, and sanctions like the witholding of federal funds should be better applied.

    Like Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings, when liberals are allowed to drag pro-military sentiments into the same rank as anti-women, anti-blacks sentiments, we’ve lost a battle to the intellectually dishonest in our society.

    Kevin, Stephen? You’re wrong in defending attempts to deny access by military recruiters to our public colleges for any reason –and it’s unpatriotic of you to defend or promote that denial. Consistent with being a liberal, but still unpatriotic.

    And DinaFelice? One college that makes a strong statement of not accepting federal money for any reason is Hillsdale College, here in Michigan. It is a private, liberals arts undergrad college that has a decidedly libertarian bent. And a healthy endowment. And few liberals on its faculty and none in its Administration, thank God. Oh, and they do allow military recruiters on campus; heck, they welcome it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 8, 2006 @ 9:20 am - March 8, 2006

  20. Michigan-Matt

    I’m not surprised…I know Drs. Anna and Richard Ebeling who taught there. Lol, I just saw them on Saturday at a FEE Event where Richard was the speaker.

    Small world.

    Comment by DinaFelice — March 8, 2006 @ 9:34 am - March 8, 2006

  21. No. 18: “Stephen, please explain how the universities’ free speech is limited.” What? I don’t understand what you’re saying/asking. I didn’t write anything about universities free speech being limited. I claimed freedom of speech is both positive and negative, that one’s freedom includes exclusion of repugnant, discriminatory speech.

    “And your Pfizer analogy is backwards.” How so?

    Comment by Stephen — March 8, 2006 @ 11:23 am - March 8, 2006

  22. No. 20. I don’t know how you could imagine my support of Roberts’ insistence that military recruitment is a logical extension of Congress’s enumerated powers could possibly be construed as an antipathy. Explain?

    Comment by Stephen — March 8, 2006 @ 11:26 am - March 8, 2006

  23. Stephen, please explain the basis of your antipathy toward the military, military recruitment, and America in general?

    (OK, that was a parody of your posts to others… I don’t need an answer; honest, I do not need an answer from you.)

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 8, 2006 @ 11:41 am - March 8, 2006

  24. #12 – AGJ that is a very good point, and one that bears repeating: The Congress of the United States is the entity discriminating against gays in the military; the military, per se, only follows Congressional mandate. (And for the history on that, go back to the Democrats in the 1990s etc.)

    #23 – LOL

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - March 8, 2006

  25. #24 – So to be consistent and honest: these “pro-gay” university schools (in scare quotes because I agree it’s probably more about them being anti-military) should really protest Congress, and refuse to allow Congressional staffers on campus, and, oh, you know, refuse to take Congressional money.

    A point well made by others, but I’m sort of “getting it” now in a new way.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 12:26 pm - March 8, 2006

  26. There seems to me to be another reason to insist that universities admit military recruiters even if they don’t take federal funding. They should have to treat all recruiters equally.

    And the point about who is really doing the discriminating with DADT is absolutey right. Wanna bet how likely either Harvard or Yale are to be horrified if one of their graduates gets picked up as a Congressional staffer or intern?

    “but they couldn’t give a good royal goddamn about Taliban reps attending Yale.”

    You make it sound like this is a bad thing. Hnh? Traditionally it was a sign of submission to have to send your young men off as hostages to be educated in the victor’s country.

    Comment by Jim — March 8, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - March 8, 2006

  27. This week has not been good for leftists. The Solomon Amendment. NSA wiretaps. The Patriot Act. And Tom Delay winning the primary by two-thirds of the votes. Poor things. Try as they might, they just can’t manage to bring down the United States.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 8, 2006 @ 1:17 pm - March 8, 2006

  28. As for private universities, nearly all accept Federal funds for grants, fellowships, etc. The same applies to them.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 8, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - March 8, 2006

  29. Traditionally it was a sign of submission to have to send your young men off as hostages to be educated in the victor’s country.

    Oh, yeah, I am sure that is *exactly* what Yale had in mind.

    Comment by V the K — March 8, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - March 8, 2006

  30. #21 “…one’s freedom includes exclusion of repugnant, discriminatory speech.”

    It doesn’t. And it can’t.

    Excluding repugnant, discriminatory speech is the antithesis of free-speech and freedom of expression. The two things can not co-exist.

    Constrained speech is not free. Intolerance is not tolerance. What ever happened to disagreeing with what someone says but defending to the death their right to say it? The self-identified defenders of human rights have stood tolerance on it’s head, prefering to deny any speech they find offensive.

    Comment by Synova — March 8, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - March 8, 2006

  31. #30 … Control over non-public aspects of one’s life excepted. Of course.

    Comment by Synova — March 8, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - March 8, 2006

  32. #30 – #31 – Absolutely. No one ever has a Constitutional right to “not be offended” by someone else’s speech or views. What they have a Constitutional right to do, is to disagree, reject, verbally fight, state their own views, or walk away / ignore, etc.

    Unless, of course, total socialism, the enslavement of all-to-all, is what you’re after. For the Lefties, I believe it is.

    #27 – RWP – What happened with NSA wiretaps this week? I may have missed it.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - March 8, 2006

  33. Private homes/property excepted, of course. My comments deal with public aspects of the public square.

    Example: Bruce and Dan pay for this space. In that sense, it’s their property and we’re guests. If they wanted to forbid a person or view here, they could – and that’s how it ought to be. But they don’t own cyberspace. If someone else wanted to start their own blog to state their view (whatever it is) and they can talk a hosting company into hosting them, they could – and that’s how it ought to be.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 3:51 pm - March 8, 2006

  34. So to summarize: In public areas, nobody has the right to “not be offended” by someone else’s views, or speech thereof.

    I’m thinking about the example of blog-comment sections more, because they seem deceptively like wide-open public space, when in fact they are private space, where someone’s “right” to comment is granted conditionally by the space-owner. Interesting hybrid.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - March 8, 2006

  35. OK, I have it. Blog comment areas are like a restaurant, shopping mall or parking lot (privately owned). You can come uninvited, get free goodies, make a speech, show off your political buttons. But the owners can still ask you to leave.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 4:26 pm - March 8, 2006

  36. #35 That works for me. 🙂

    Comment by Synova — March 8, 2006 @ 4:38 pm - March 8, 2006

  37. Calarato says:

    But I must say, I think Congress does Constitutionally have the power to raise armies and, with a volunteer army, that has to mean the power to recruit. I don’t have a problem with compelled “access to recruiters” because the draft, if that’s ultimately the only alternative, would be a far more sweeping and immoral abridgment of fundamental rights.

    @#$@!!. I actually agree with Calarato. The end times must be near.

    Congress clearly has the authority under the Constitution to conscript your 13 year old from your living room. Compelling all school campuses to admit military recruiters is certainly no stretch.

    ——

    DADT had very little to do with the College and University lawsuit. Some of them have had their campuses closed to the military since the Viet Nam War. Frankly I’m a bit confused, I remember quite clearly that after the original furor about DADT died down, Colleges and universities almost completely abandoned the subject. They made no effort to change or get rid of DADT or to continue to pressure Congress to do so. They went right back to their ivory towers.

    It was only after the Solomon law was put into place that they suddenly (and belatedly) acquired a vast sense of outrage over the subject.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — March 8, 2006 @ 4:53 pm - March 8, 2006

  38. I wonder why liberals are falling over themselves about the military on college campi, but they couldn’t give a good royal goddamn about Taliban reps attending Yale.

    The same reason liberals scream about putting pantis on the heads of terrorists, but say nothing about savages beheading Americans. The same reason feminists scream about “glass ceilings,” but are silent about the epidemic of rapes by Muslim barbarians in Europe.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 8, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - March 8, 2006

  39. #37 – Wow… No groundless personal attack about what a blind, raving Republican I must be? The end times are indeed at hand.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 5:18 pm - March 8, 2006

  40. Patrick, welcome to the club of wise people who appreciate Calarato’s opinion; come in, close the door, the room’s getting too crowded. And in the off chance there’s still hope for you, NDXXX and VdaK would like to see you near the cash bar (what else at a Calarato party?) for some rudimentary re-education.

    When you leave, you’ll be fed, happy and a libertarian.
    ——————————
    Back on topic, a group of muslim female MSU grad school students were protesting the anti-Muslim cartoons last week… and one of them offered, “Free speech ends where my dignity begins.”

    http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060301/NEWS01/603010347/1001/news

    Seems to me that, even if SCOTUS doesn’t think that’s true, there are lots of folks in our country who would limit free speech to non-offensive speech.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 8, 2006 @ 6:46 pm - March 8, 2006

  41. Matt, thanks for the compliment 😉

    ——————————
    crazy slogan, “Free speech ends where my dignity begins.”

    Wow. That about sums it up!

    It’s the viewpoint, and mistake, of Islamo-fascists and Left socialist-fascists alike. If you “offend” their “dignity”, you lose – because they, the tribe, have an unlimited right to decide (with their subjective, but collective “feelings”) what you can think, feel or do. In a word: tribalism.

    Comment by Calarato — March 8, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - March 8, 2006

  42. Of course the colleges have to accept the recruiters, but I will relish the day it is used in a supportive arguement for overturning the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy. It’s ridiculous to think that policy still exists in our time.

    Comment by The Prescient One — March 8, 2006 @ 9:06 pm - March 8, 2006

  43. It’s interesting that this post appears directly above the last part of a series of posts about the various issues involved in DADT. It’s clear that the desire to serve one’s country is more important that one’s sexuality, as eloquently expressed by the writer in part VI of the last post. As we all know, homophobia to the point of dismissing people from their jobs hurts everyone in our world. The dedicated men and women in the military who are no longer there is a shame to our country, plus other people who serve our country who lose their jobs (weren’t their security agents who translated various mid east languages who were dismissed because they were gay? Isn’t there some conjecture that more could have been known about terrorist plans both pre and post 9/11 if more people had been in those posts?)

    It’s because of these issues that I’m perplexed why there is so much glee over military recruiters being able to return to college campuses where they were banned because (in part) because of discriminatory practices against gays. If nothing else, it was a tool to protest policies implented by our government.

    Comment by Kevin — March 8, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - March 8, 2006

  44. Because, Kevin, we find it hard to believe that institutions that are hotbeds of people who:

    a) demand “a million Mogadishus” care anything about our military men other than seeing them dead

    b) say Americans killed by terrorists are “little Eichmanns” who deserve to die care anything about fighting terrorism

    c) promote and support viciously-homophobic regimes like the Palestinian Authority, in which being gay carries the death penalty, over Israel, in which gays have rights, care one whit about gays.

    In short, gays were nothing more than a convenient excuse for these hatemongers. But they were able to manipulate the fact that most gays will defend to the death anyone who pretends to like them, even if doing so associates them with actions and people that are beyond repugnant to most Americans.

    The irony is that associating gays with terrorist supporters and anti-military fools strengthens the case for DADT.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 8, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - March 8, 2006

  45. #27 – RWP – What happened with NSA wiretaps this week? I may have missed it.

    Here, let me find a link (I’m not really awake) …

    Here/

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 9, 2006 @ 8:00 am - March 9, 2006

  46. “Traditionally it was a sign of submission to have to send your young men off as hostages to be educated in the victor’s country.

    Oh, yeah, I am sure that is *exactly* what Yale had in mind. ”

    V, you are quite right; my point is fuck Yale, they are just an inconsequential minority – the point is how this will play in Afghnaistan and places like that. This little dickhead bigot Taliban guy looks like he just turned.

    ND30 is also quite right if he means that these universities don’t give a shit about us – same discussion we all had about the women’s groups.

    Comment by Jim — March 9, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - March 9, 2006

  47. AGJ, when you offered that you would object to a move by the Congress to require access by military recruiters even at colleges that do not accept federal funding –and argue that’s a free association infringement or free speech infringement– isn’t that something like arguing we don’t have to pay those taxes attributable to defense expenditures if you’re a Quaker? or pay taxes attributable to welfare if you’re a libertarian? or pay for Democrat office expenses like Kerry’s or Kennedy’s if your a moral, faithful practicing Catholic? The 1st priority of the national govt is to protect the country.

    Seems to me, whether it’s time of war (and is that only a declared war or can that be the modern equivalent of an undeclraed war) or not is immaterial. Citizens and institutions of the US have a moral duty to help defend and protect the US, the Constitution –and that applies even to ivory tower higher education elites who hold the military incontempt for whatever reason is in vogue. Access by military recruiters to the campus doesn’t translate into impressment or brainwashing… those who might want to enlist can exercise a choice.

    For me, that’s all just cheap politics and political drama. Like CindySheehanZero in her last antics… or JohnConyers in his impeach Bush movement… cheap political drama.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 9, 2006 @ 4:05 pm - March 9, 2006

  48. Excuse me, BUT IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT gays in the military mess up the military. Gays create an uncomfortable environment.
    People don’t do well in UNCOMFORTABLE environments. I know that I sure as hell would NOT want a gay person in my platoon –never! It just isn’t right. Gays can work as secretaries in the defense department and things like that… BUT ONLY AS CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE DOD.
    I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE BANNING these “men” from military service.

    Dan in Baltimore

    Comment by dan cobb — March 9, 2006 @ 6:20 pm - March 9, 2006

  49. The commanders know how bad it would be for the military to have gays serving. THAT’S WHY THE BAN AGAINST GAYS WILL NEVER EVER BE LIFTED. Sorry to say to you gay people, but all you do is whine and whine and whine. No one wants that in the military!

    Dan

    Comment by dan cobb — March 9, 2006 @ 6:22 pm - March 9, 2006

  50. Who the holy fuck is “Dann Cobb,” and how did this guy find his way into this neighborhood?!?!?!?!?

    Eric in Hollywood
    Former Captain (O-3), US Army
    3rd Platoon Leader, “A” Battery, 1/41 Field Artillery
    Schwaebisch Gmeund, W. Germany
    Security Clearance: Top Secret
    Member, Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program
    1985 to 1991

    Big Queer Man – 1962 to Present

    Chances are, Herr Cobb, that you’ve already served with, or been commanded by, several gay men.

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 9, 2006 @ 7:38 pm - March 9, 2006

  51. The gist of the ruling was that the law schools and professors were not having their ability to gather and exercise their right to freedom of speech. They can speak out about it all they want- the government isn’t gagging the law schools by requiring military recruiters being allowed on campus. Just more of the emotion based b.s. arguments that they try to make to get that which they don’t like thrown out. It’s typical uber-lib hypocrasy. Much like Yale University not allowing ROTC on their campus, but the former diplomat for the Taliban with only a 4th grade education and a 3.3 GPA from a GED program is sufficient. Total crap.

    Comment by ARCountryBoy — March 9, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - March 9, 2006

  52. 44: Let’s get real…college campuses haven’t been “hotbeds of liberalism” for years. I was in college a time when activism (no matter what the cause) was quickly disappearing.

    It’s pretty sad that you ( and a few other people) take the Anne Coulter route and automatically label anyone who is liberal into one single group. You take the statements of one or 2 people and immediately ascribe them to every liberal in the boutnry. My favorite is the link that keeps popping here that goes to the guy who made the statement that old interrment camps for japanese in the US in WW II were being readied for gays. From what I see, no one else seems to agree with or making the statement that this actually happening, yet someone on here trots this out regularly to prove all gay liberals are nuts.

    I’m man enough and adult enough to admit that not every conservative out there is some greedy, fake religious, homophobe.

    Comment by Kevin — March 9, 2006 @ 10:11 pm - March 9, 2006

  53. Welcome, Dan Cobb. THIS is definitely YOUR blog. Queers here completely understand. Maybe, DADT isn’t perfect, but you’re on target with having queers playing secretary. (CP may object.) But promise, you won’t look when HollywoodCon bends over! No. 50 can be kind of silly, giving you all his personals and stuff. You’ve obviously stirred an interest. Did you get the reference to “serving under?” But let’s cool it. GWB does NOT approve. Not even with condoms.

    Comment by Stephen — March 9, 2006 @ 10:24 pm - March 9, 2006

  54. Stephen, please tell me you knew what I was up to in my last post. I know you’re far from stupid, but if you didn’t get what I was saying, then maybe you were just a little imperceptive.

    BTW… “silly?” That was just a tad patronizing my liberal friend, don’t ya think?

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 9, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - March 9, 2006

  55. Oh wait…

    Stephen, you were bullshitting, right? Please tell me you were bullshitting???

    Eric in a haze

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — March 9, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - March 9, 2006

  56. I’m man enough and adult enough to admit that not every conservative out there is some greedy, fake religious, homophobe.

    And yet you won’t.

    You could start by saying that Stephen is lying when he says gay conservatives and Republicans want to want to write the Bible into the Constitution, strip gays of jobs and housing, and ship them off to concentration camps.

    But you won’t.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 10, 2006 @ 2:14 am - March 10, 2006

  57. #52 — Since the rhetoric of the Democrat leadership has become increasingly indistinguishable from the kook fringe, I think it’s quite fair to paint the left with a broad brush. After all, Pat Robertson isn’t in charge of the Republican Party, but Howard Dean is certainly in charge of the Democrat party.

    This is highly unfortunate. A sane and reasonable Democrat Party could have forced some discipline on the Republicans. Much of what Bush has been rightly criticized for … insane levels of domestic spending, complete neglect of the borders, the ungodly mess that is the Department of Homeland Security (which Bush didn’t want and which, in retrospect, he may have been right about not wanting)… might have been constrained if the opposition weren’t taking its marching orders from the demented likes of MoveOn and the rest of the fringe left.

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 5:53 am - March 10, 2006

  58. Let’s get real…college campuses haven’t been “hotbeds of liberalism” for years

    That is easily the most idiotic, counterfactual statement I have seen in years, and that’s saying a great deal.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 10, 2006 @ 7:51 am - March 10, 2006

  59. #57 – Sigh. Sadly true.

    Comment by Calarato — March 10, 2006 @ 7:56 am - March 10, 2006

  60. O/T that AGJ started, but I couldn’t help responding to Kevin’s silly suggestion that colleges aren’t a petrie dish of liberalism… you’ve never been in a classroom, sat at a dorm lunch table, or walked across campus at UofM or MSU or NMU or EMU or WMU or CMU have you? They may no longer be “hotbeds” –but the illogical appeal of social liberalism represented by Democrats like Dean and Moore still dominate, motivate and encourage.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 10, 2006 @ 9:29 am - March 10, 2006

  61. Ah, does anyone here wonder why it is that the places where intelligent people are located tend to be “hot beds” of liberalism? Liberal places have intelligent people and intelligent people are found where liberals congregate. Hm. What could this mean? Hm…..
    Hm… maybe some of you Einsteins can do the syllogism…: liberal = intelligent. There you go!
    And conservative = emotional jingoism. That’s the real deal, guys.

    Comment by Dan Cobb — March 14, 2006 @ 10:04 am - March 14, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.