March 07, 2006
Where's Soros When You Need Him?
from - smijer
One report on Monday's Supreme Court ruling regarding university policies on recruitment and discrimination and the federal response... I'll explain, with running commentary.
Most prominent law schools, because of their respect for the law and the principles behind it, require a written pledge from those organizations who wish to recruit their graduates that they will not discriminate... including on the basis of sexual orientation.
Good so far. Now, as we all know, the military cares more about "hating teh gay" than, you know, keeping America secure. So, under the policies of most prominent U.S. law schools, the Universities will not allow them to recruit on campus... good for them!... except, they do. Because they receive (and require) substantial federal funding, which depends on them allowing military recruiters on campus. So, they have made an exception, since the eighties, to allow military recruiters after all, however they do not provide military recruiters the same assistance in terms of communication and advertizing to their students as they do employers who do not have openly bigoted hiring practices.
So that's good. But now (and I'm not clear whether this is based on new law or old), the military is pulling funding on the basis that their recruiters are not provided the same services as other recruiters. So a group of law schools (including Georgetown, and I'm not sure who else) have sued the government under the first amendment. And this is where it gets complicated.
The cause of action is under the established legal doctrine that to tie federal funding to the exercise of protected speech is unconstitutional. The doctrine is, I believe, legally sound. But, the application is weak... even the Court's remaining "liberal" justices rejected it. Chief Justice Roberts put it ... well... admirably, in writing the decision:
In his opinion on Monday, he outlined how First Amendment protections of free speech and association weren't jeopardized by what Congress did."The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote. "Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds."
He noted that the law might require schools to send e-mails or post notices about military recruiters because they do it for other businesses. But he said such "compelled speech" was only incidental to the requirement that military recruiters be treated equally.
Comparing that situation to similar ones the court has faced, Roberts wrote: "Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah's Witness to display the motto `Live Free or Die.'" He said it "trivializes" constitutional protections to suggest that the law schools face similar burdens.
Roberts said law schools aren't "speaking" when they aid students in the recruitment process.
That isn't to say I like the idea of any organization - military or otherwise - using college campuses to recruit into a system of mandated discrimination. But I agree that the first amendment challenge is weak. .... Now, please bear in mind that this is running commentary as I describe the situation .... I'm not "building" to anything here....
I do think, however, that there is a flaw in the application of the law... It would (probably) be within the rights of the government to tie funding to a University's practices regarding recruitment in the sense of making specific demands on what the University must do in order to gain said funding, I don't think that the Universities should lose funding based on the actual law, which says they must provide the same services to military recruiters as to other recruiters. The challenge, then, should be made on the basis of the application of the law, rather than on the perceived violation of the amendment number 1. See, the law doesn't prescribe that specific services must be provided by the university - only that the same services be provided as are provided to other recruiters. And, the university does provide the same services as are provided to other recruiters - it uses campus resources to advise students when employers who meet their recruitment standards, regardless of who they are are recruiting on campus. The military does not meet their recruitment standards. They are treated better than other organizations who do not meet their recruitment standards - they are allowed on campus. The university's advertizement program is not "one size fits all" - they advertize based on the organization's individual merits. And the same standards apply to the military as apply to any other recruiter. So, under the law, they should not lose funding.
So, the challenge was wrong - and a very legitimate one was available - one which should have succeeded, and should have left Congress in the position of having to pass very specifically bigoted legislation in order to achieve their desired end regarding military recruitment on university campus.
Next point... this is an opportunity. Many representatives of the law schools in question view this decision, as it was written, as an invitation to more aggressive protest of the military's policies of elevating hatred over security. That's true and good. But there's a bigger point waiting to be made, too - if the courage and the money exist to make it.
Because, as I've mentioned numerous times previously, the military does value bigotry over security... but few people have thought about it enough to perceive that fact.
So what happens if the universities decide to take the financial hit and ban miliatry recruiters, per their own high-minded policies? Well, the military loses access to a very valuable pool of recruits at a time when they are already facing very tough recruiting challenges. The government has a choice.... they can be seen to be abonding this pool of recruits and threatening an already threadbare security force - or they can change their discriminatory policies. Which will they choose? Who will support them in their choice? If they choose to abandon campus recruiting and trigger a situation where numerous prestigious universities are de-funded, then they will be seen by the public to have no interest in the most vital asset any nation can have - a well-educated populace. If they stay to the hardline, they will most certainly be voted out and replaced by people who care about education and security over gay-bashing.
And that's where George Soros comes in... because no one could ask the American university system to commit suicide. And that's what would be happening if the universities gave up funding en masse. We need a safety net for them to make it possible for them to take a principled stand... And then, we need a lot more money and organization to rally behind that principled stand - so that during the next elections there will be a clear national referendum on the relative importance of maintaining a culture of hatred and keeping our nation secure and well educated. As attractive as that culture of hatred is to so many people, when the choice is clear, the balances will tip in favor of security and education. And, if it doesn't... maybe we don't deserve to remain a first world nation, anyway.
::Posted by smijer at March 7, 2006 06:14 AM
How about instead simply winning the battle of ideas?
I have no military experience so my opinion on the matter is moot, but people all across the political spectrum WITH experience have said that a full integration of gays would hurt cohesion. Again, not my opinion (I see no reason not to employ interpreters right now, aamof) as I am pro-civil union, but theirs. No one has said that Colin Powell is a hater, but he is dead-set against it.
For that matter, so was Bill Clinton's official policy.
One needn't be a "hater" to be against having gays serve. It is indeed outright discrimination, though. Of course, they'd refuse me should I wish to sign up because I'm 39 years old, even though I'm in peak condition physically. They'd refuse a 300 pound 20 year-old, as well. So, the "discrimination" argument doesn't really fly, as we ALL discriminate in some way - the question is whether or not this instance is warranted.
Secondly, siding against the military is a monstrous political loser. It makes the Dubai port deal pale in comparison. Hideously unwise, IMO. Is there any group in American more respected than the military? A contest between college professors and the military is a no-contest.
Thirdly, how hideous is it that the official policy for some universities was to BAN the military? I mean, when did open-mindedness equate with banning the people that you disagree with?
Fourthly, revisit my first sentence. Step back and take a look at the situation (as the right was forced to do in 1993) and realize that the scenario involves the left failing to succeed in talk-radio because they're relying on ideologues and personalities instead of radio talent - and running to folks like Soros to fund what they cannot achieve in the marketplace. They're behind the GOP (again) in the marketplace of campaign contributions and are relying on union money (which isn't donated from members, but taken) and folks like Soros to fund their 527s. They're relying on Soros & co for web sites, advertisements and various other outlets. He's already stretched pretty thin for the cause, don't you think? Why not use logic and argument to convince folks like me - who aren't already in the camp of the "no way, no how" brigade but who are probably leaning against it because of respected folks like Colin Powell saying it is a bad idea - to come to your side? I've already moved in that direction a bit via the aforementioned interpreters (as well as IS experts, analysts and the like), so my proverbial ears are open.
Telling me that folks who disagree are banned (how's that for irony? Banning folks because they don't like their policy on banning!) or that if the nation doesn't agree then we don't deserve first world status, however, is not getting things off to a good start.
|
Posted by RW on March 7, 2006 08:51 PM Link to comment |
I agree with you RW
One should never play hardball with somebody that has harder balls.
I think the military will change their position eventually out of necessity.
Beggers can't be choosers.
|
|
Posted by Buck on March 7, 2006 10:20 PM Link to comment |
RW... I know you don't have to be a conscious "hater" to want to leave gays behind in the military... but that emotional reaction that some folks (including many recruits) have toward the notion of serving alongside gays... the one that leads "us" to worry about cohesion and morale? - well, it isn't what the Greek New Testament calls Agape, you know?
You know, people could have (and did) make the "cohesion" argument when the military was desegregated. Fortunately, at that time the government and military were moral leaders on the issue; Miraculously, it was settled as a matter of policy rather than politics. But those days are behind us now. Now - unless we just accidentally elect another government like Truman's - the issue will be settled politically, and in the "marketplace of ideas".
And, oddly, the marketplace of ideas has, in recent years, become more like a real marketplace. Quality of the product is of secondary importance - the winners are those with the best advertizing schemes. Budweiser sells more beer than Pabst even though the latter is a better quality beer because of the frogs. So as long as you have Moon, Scaife, and Murdoch - we are going to need Soros and his ilk to compete, even if we are trying to market a better product.
Finally, with regards to your correct analysis that opposing the military is a political loser... well that's the point. University staff aren't running for elections - and those who insist on decimating the military (and education) by insisting on the policy of discrimination are the ones who should be pegged - in a well managed and funded campaign - as the opposers of the military. That's the whole reason for hoping that the universities will take a stand...
It would be a different issue if the campus policies were meant specifically to exclude the military - but they are not. The government elects to exclude themselves under a reasonable university standard of non-discrimination. And the universities have a right - and considering their cultural function, perhaps an obligation - to enact policies of non-assistance to discriminatory organizations.
There is a simple solution - stop banning gays from the military. It's a win-win-win, especially if universities take their stand. It won't happen until we have a leader who is willing to lead (or until Buck's prophecy eventually is fulfilled). Having universities making their stand, and big money behind the politicians and activist who are eager to adopt the best policy, will create a situation where the otherwise unpopular idea of integration can become a winning campaign platform. And, when people start winning elections because of their support for equality, then we can really say that the "marketplace of ideas" is working.
|
|
Posted by smijer on March 8, 2006 07:30 AM Link to comment |
Somewhat on-topic, I've always wondered about how the other soldiers feel on the topic. I doubt that many of them would really care if someone else they were serving with was gay. I doubt they'd care if their wing-man was gay, or their XO was gay or if their CO was gay, as long as they could do their jobs.
I do, however, wonder what they'd think if the guy in the group shower or in the foxhole or bunk beside/below them......was openly gay. Sort of along the lines of "look, I'm not anti-gay, I'll give _____ the shirt off my back if they need it and they're welcome to crash at my house if they need shelter, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable if they're standing next to me in the shower". I've heard some folks pose that question to various Dem pols in the past and the (obviously a talking point) reponse was "well, aren't you full of yourself that you think gay men are wanting to look at you in the shower"....to loud applause from the adoring audience [think Maher's minions].
All the while I'm sitting there shouting at the television "er, excuse me, why do we separate the showers of women and men in the military...and elsewhere, again"?
It's like I told someone whom I consider a friend, Michael Demmons (gayorbit) to his face, even though he didn't like it:
America simply isn't for gay marriage. Maybe some day, perhaps. I dunno. I doubt it, but that's a guess. What I can tell you is that in our lifetimes, the American public simply will not vote for gay marriage. Maybe our kids, who knows? So, since the goal is equality, why not fight for something that is winnable - like civil unions - and thus further the cause (kick the can down the road a bit) and then fight for more afterwards? Incrementalism sometimes works. If America never wants gay marriage, at least there'd be civil unions in place and you'd have rights. If that's what you're asking for, why wouldn't that be ideal?
Like I said, Michael didn't like it because he is for gay marriage but he knows I'm pro-civil union (long story), but I think he knew I was right. Demanding that the public accept your criteria to the letter and declaring that anything short of that is bigotry from an uneducated/ignorant public that is succeptible to marketing campaigns (see: dunce, boob) is a recipe for disaster. If getting gays to serve in needed positions is the goal, argue for getting gays to serve in needed positions....right now, that's interpreters, analysts, computer experts and the like. And, IMO, that's more doable than demanding that America mandate that taking a shower next to the reincarnation of Liberace simply because you both serve in the same infantry unit.
BTW, about the marketing thing: the most viruently anti-gay group in America is also the most diehard lock-step voting bloc for the Democratic party -- blacks. IOW, labels are sometimes quite cloudy.
|
|
Posted by RW on March 8, 2006 08:39 AM Link to comment |
BTW, rereading my last comment, the "to his face" part seemed sorta obtuse...it was a friendly conversation over dinner @ a blogmeet. I was in no way playing the "I'll say this to your face" game....we were just chatting. All I was trying to do was get across the point that I wasn't doing this via e-mail or comments section, but we were having a real conversation about the topic and as we all know, face-to-face is quite different than discussing things on the internet (as if anyone from the dailykos/freeper/eschaton/lgf discussions would actually say what they type to their interlocutors' faces). Michael is a great guy and I would never be abrasive towards him and I'm sorry that I typed that in such a horrendous manner that it could be construed that way.
|
|
Posted by RW on March 8, 2006 08:44 AM Link to comment |
I only have a minute, so I'll have to get back to you, but on the O-T thing, I certainly agree with your perspective... and if you don't mind me saying so, it's another good reason for full integration. As it stands under "don't ask, don't tell", soldiers are almost certainly being seen in the shower by other soldiers who are gay, and no accomodation can be made because that would be "asking & telling"... same before "don't ask, don't tell", because gays in the military then didn't advertize their presence either.
Under integration, shower accomodations can be made.
ok - one other thing... the fact is that we need people in the military... in all roles. Recruiting is badly anemic... So putting gays "where needed" wouldn't be far from full integration... And, look at that from the perspective that you are a gay man yourself. You can be a translator because they need you for that, but if your talent is demolition or reconnaisance, too bad - you're too creepy for them. Separate but equal sound familiar? Even if that isn't how you (Ricky) mean it - that doesn't mean the message coming in loud and clear to gays is that they are second class citizens who should "know their place". We should put too much value on them as people to put say that to them as a society.
|
|
Posted by smijer on March 8, 2006 01:28 PM Link to comment |
"You can be a translator because they need you for that, but if your talent is demolition or reconnaisance, too bad - you're too creepy for them."
Not much different than "you can be a ground soldier because you're 6'5" and 225 lbs and are probably physically stronger than 90% of the existing troops, but you can't sign up because you're 39 years old". Sorry, we already have separate but equal in most avenues of society: women can play basketball, but not in the NBA. Women can be soldiers, but they're not chosen to lead the ground battles on the front. Women can be firefighters, but they're not chosen to be the lead in carrying the hose.
And, yes, choosing women because they're destined by biology to be physically weaker is abhorrently unfair on my part as a comparison, but I'm also stressed for time so I need some slack. :)
But, as the cliche' goes, the US military isn't a social test unit...if the soldiers are adamantly against it, perhaps we shouldn't be causing universities to almost go bankrupt in order to display the advocacy of selected professors. Trust me, the University system of Georgia most certainly does not speak for the citizenry/taxpayers of the state. My engineering education was thankfully wanting for classes that introduced political bias into the mix (hard to show a slant with the laws of physics, advanced algebra and calculus) but I do recall a few profs that were "out there". I see no reason that they - and their bosses - should use my tax dollars to place a proverbial stake in the ground because of their political pet causes.
My $0.02.
|
|
Posted by RW on March 8, 2006 02:23 PM Link to comment |
RW wrote, "[P]eople all across the political spectrum WITH experience have said that a full integration of gays would hurt cohesion."
On the other hand, the UK has not had a policy against gays in the military, to my knowledge, since 1999. Has it hurt the cohesion of the military in the UK? I'm sure there are other countries in the same boat. I realize that attitudes in American tend to be more. . .provincial, let's say, but really it's hard to tell without trying it out. And, as RW points out, it's hard to see how the overall effectiveness of the military would be hurt by, say, gay translators or gays in non-combat jobs, even if that did create a second-class soldier situation.
|
|
Posted by RSA on March 8, 2006 02:36 PM Link to comment |
But, as the cliche' goes, the US military isn't a social test unit... No more so than when the military was racially integrated.
Chances are the (white) soldiers were "adamantly against" that, too. And, the fact is... it really isn't much of a test. People are blessed and cursed with human nature - fear the unfamiliar, embrace the familiar. When they learn that their buddy joe is gay, and learn that their buddy joe is just like them and committed to the unit, they will accept, and life will go on. As RSA pointed out, the Brits integrated and the sky didn't fall.
Trust me, the University system of Georgia most certainly does not speak for the citizenry/taxpayers of the state.
To me, Universities are not meant to reflect the culture, but - through education, research, and intellectual advocay, to advance the culture.
As far as women and geriatric soldiery is concerned - there may still be issues that should be addressed. It's understandable to recruit a 39 year old last (I understand some in that age group are being recalled at this time), or to put a 5'2" 110 lb woman in rear of combat. Those have to do with physical limitations - unlike sexual orientation. However, there is still (I'm sure) room for improvement in how age, gender, and physical strength are dealt with in the military... Unavoidable inequalities based on physical ability to safely and competently perform the job do not excuse perpeutating any inequalities (they existed after all, when racial integration occurred, and were not a valid argument for stopping it)... same with other inequalities that are avoidable, and have not been given redress yet. They don't excuse the creation of a second-class citizen or soldier on the basis of sexual orientation.
|
|
Posted by smijer on March 8, 2006 05:29 PM Link to comment |
Still, though, if there should be no obstacles to outwardly gay soldiers sharing barracks/showers with other recruits, why exactly do we separate women from men?
Talk about separate but equal!
|
|
Posted by RW on March 9, 2006 01:55 PM Link to comment |
