Suikoden Ugly and Informational Karma Omniscient Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies

  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Courts rule on military and schools

Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Educational
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Demon King's Ambition

Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Post Count: 2201
Location: Roble Viviente
41 Potch
1150 Soldiers
25 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:13 pm    Post subject: Courts rule on military and schools Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 56 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that the government can force colleges to open their campuses to military recruiters despite university objections to the
Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and professors who claimed they should not have to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

The decision was a setback for universities that had become the latest battleground over the military policy allowing gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.

The ruling does not, however, answer broader questions about the policy itself. Challenges are pending in courts in Boston and Los Angeles that could eventually reach the high court.

Justices seemed swayed by the Bush administration's arguments that after the terrorist attacks, and during the war in
Iraq, the government had a responsibility to bolster its recruitment.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that campus visits are an effective recruiting tool. And, he said, "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."

The 8-0 decision upheld a federal law that says universities must give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.

Justices ruled even more broadly, saying that Congress could directly demand military access on campus without linking the requirement to federal money.

"When you're in the middle of war, even if it's not a terribly popular one, courts are hesitant to tie the hands of the military," said Jon Davidson, legal director of gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, called the decision "an important victory for the military and ultimately for our national security."

The military's policy had put college leaders in a thorny situation because of campus rules that forbid participation of recruiters representing agencies or private companies that have discriminatory policies.

Most college leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.

Roberts, writing his third decision since joining the court last fall, said there are other less drastic options for protesting the policy. "Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military's message," he wrote.

Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney for the challengers of the law, said that the case called attention to the military policy. "A silver lining to the Supreme Court's opinion is the court made it clear," he said, "law schools are free to organize protests."

Geoffrey Shields, dean of Vermont Law School, said the school since 1999 has given up some federal money and will continue to bar recruiters "as a symbol of the importance of fair treatment of all people."

"We've stuck to our guns and I anticipate we'll continue to stick to our guns," he said.

Roberts' decision carefully sidestepped taking a stand on the policy itself, although he explained in a footnote that under don't ask, don't tell, "a person generally may not serve in the Armed Forces if he has engaged in homosexual acts, stated that he is a homosexual, or married a person of the same sex."

The court roundly rejected arguments that the policy raised important First Amendment free-speech issues for school leaders.

"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,'" Roberts wrote.

Roberts filed the only opinion, which was joined by every justice but
Samuel Alito. Alito did not participate because he was not on the bench when the case was argued three months ago.

Congress passed the law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, in 1994 — the same year that lawmakers approved the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," the chief justice said.

The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.


Well. This is both a Victory and a failure. I personaly disagree with the ruling. I beleive the Military has no place in our schools. Especially since I've seen them do a great deal of lying to students. Telling them they can choose where they get sent, prmosing they only have to serve for a limited time. Things like that.

It is however, good to know that Schools have the right to protest, and I'm damn sure they will. I know almost no one who agrees with the way the <s>world police </s> military is being used.

So, just what do you all think? do schools have the right to protest? to not allow the military on their campuses. What?

Edit: Oops. forgot to quote it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address

The Wee Kitty Grand Duke Defense Brigade

Joined: 13 May 2004
Post Count: 4744
Location: Reina Mia
498078 Potch
1330 Soldiers
2725 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Assuming public schools get money from the government, I think the government can allow the military to advertise there. If they withdraw federal funding, then they can also force the military to not recruit.

I don't think private schools should be under the same obligation, as they (assumedly), aren't recieving any money from the government.

However, I think the time has come for the military to just say "We don't care about your sexual orientation; we care about defending this country." and be done with it.

SCII month continues!
John Layfield wrote:
But bubbles... children love bubbles! XD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger

Eyepatches of the Faith

Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Post Count: 3531
Location: Plaats
395855 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I tend to agree with the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy - why should such a personal and private thing be everyone's business in the first place? It's a decision on a lifestyle you make that has nothing to do with anyone else, IMHO, so why make it everyone else's business what / who you are?

In regards to recruitment at schools, the military has the right to be there, but also the people on that campus have the right to walk past the recruitment display and pay it no mind. Why legislate or put a law to something I would like to think people have the common sense to do in the first place? Let the military recruit on campus, but maybe if they don't get people to recruit, they won't show up on campus anymore. In other words, let the market forces of supply and demand bear them out, and not some legal ruling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Demon King's Ambition

Joined: 18 Sep 2005
Post Count: 2201
Location: Roble Viviente
41 Potch
1150 Soldiers
25 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

The problem with Don't ask don't tell is the reprocussions of it being discovered you ARE gay. Dishonorable discharges for being homosexual and serving your country is hardly something that should be agreed with.

(DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January, 1981):

"Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to insure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security."

That quote sounds pretty familiar. Sounds alot like why I hear people say Women have no place in our military.
The major arguments made against women serving in a combat capacity are as follows:

1. The risk of being raped by the enemy is a risk that is largely unique to female soldiers.

2. The risk that male soldiers could take foolish risks defending women, or that the presence of women soldiers may distract male soldiers from duty.

3. The worry that female troops are likely to be sexually harassed by male soldiers.

4. The belief of certain religious groups that God did not intend women to go to war or engage in battle.

5. The fact that women are physically weaker then men, and are believed by some to be less aggressive.

Regarding this last concern, some military units currently test women to a lower physical standard than their male counterparts - for example the United States Marine Corps requires male recruits to complete several pull-ups to pass fitness testing, but only requires female recruits to complete a 70 second dead-hang. Critics argue that lowering physical standards for women combat recruits would weaken combat units unacceptably, and that any woman wanting to fill a combat role should only be allowed if she passes the same physical tests that are required of male soldiers. Others note that older Marines are not required to meet the same standard as younger Marines, and argue that the age-norming of standards is not substantially different than sex-norming.

According to wikipedia 9672 people have been discharged between 1994 and 2003 because of this poloicy. That's nearly 10,000 troops that have been let go because they're gay.

No mater how one goes about it, it is a form of discrimination.

I'm not going to get into this:
It's a decision on a lifestyle you make that has nothing to do with anyone else
People don't choose to live a life where society mocks and hates them.

The problem I have is I have been LIED to by recruiters. Telling me I could choose wheather or not I would go to Iraq. I've had them get to the point of harasing me and other students, after having told them we were not interested.

Perhaps if they could regulate it better and keep the recruiters from lying to applicants, I wouldn't have the problem with campus recruitment that I do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Educational All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum by: Vextor

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me