Equal treatment or special privilage?

[Ming]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


They're treating them the same as they would any recruiter for any organisation that has similarly discriminatory hiring practices. If they were treating them differently simply because they were the military then you would have a point.

Grants and contracts aren't required by law... since the government is being treated differently by the schools, they can treat the schools differently. If the schools have the right... so does the government. And again, they aren't telling the schools they can't speak out or be against them, they have ONLY asked for EQUAL treatment... if the schools don't want to give it, why should the government have to treat them fair?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Odin


Tell that to people who can't become one because they are openly gay.

Be more than happy to. The former JAG that I have worked most closely with is gay, not sure if she was out at the time, but she loved the job.

the main goal of a law school should be to train their students and help get them jobs, not be activists. Let the students be activists if they want to be.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... the law schools started this by treating military recruiters different than other recruiters. All the government is asking is that they treat them the same.
Nobody is saying that the law schools or students can't be against or speak out against the military's policy on gays... I would think that treating ANY recruiter different than others would be a violation of the schools code of conduct.

I have to agree with the government here. This is not money "owed" to the schools... they are grants and contracts... and the government has every right to determine who gets them. While I don't agree with the Military's policy on gays... the Schools are discriminating against the military by not treating their recruiters the same... Sure, consider it a protest... but then the Government has the same right to protest with their actions.

Against the military policy on gays... but supporting the government on this one.

That's the government's position. The law schools are saying they treat everyone the same and require all recruiters to sign an agreement that they're employers do not engage in discriminatory practices based upon gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation. They are claiming that everyone has been treated the same.

It will be interesting to see how this will be decided.

[Ming]

The schools don't have a leg to stand on... there is really nothing to be decided. There is NO LAW that says the Government has to give ANY school grants or contracts...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Is it only the law schools that restrict the military recruiters? How many lawyers does the military need? I mean, they make really lousy cannon fodder.

The article says only the law schools are enforcing the anti-descrimination policy against military recruiters but the Congressional law states that the whole university will lose education funds unless the military is allowed to discriminate against gays and still be treated the same. Seems stupid to punish everyone for the acts of one college on a university campus.

[Apocalypse]

You have to realize that it's very easy to kick recruiters off campus for reasons OTHER than the gay thing. They lie all the time.

[Dinner]

They were still allowed on campus but they didn't get to take part in hiring faires.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Seems stupid to punish everyone for the acts of one college on a university campus.

Stupid.... hell, it sounds effective to me. Again... show me the law that states the government has to give five grants and contracts to any school that it doesn't want to... If I were getting dissed by somebody, I wouldn't voluntarily give them a cent either.

[Dinner]

If it is a state school the state should simply stop sending tax money on to the Federal government until the federal government agrees to release the education funds. Won't happen but I think the country would be better off with a reexamination of states' & Federal obligations and rights.

Isn't that just so right wing of me?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
They were still allowed on campus but they didn't get to take part in hiring faires.

I know...I'm just emphasizing it's not hard to go a step further.

I go to a military school and they find ways to ban recruiters all the time.

[Jon Miller]

in which case the US government would send troops in...

it is the difference of the money being the USes.. or the States

the education money is not the states.. the US government voted to spend some on education.. and can spend that how the government likes...

on the other hand, the income tax is the federal governments, not the states.. the federal government set the rate...

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ming


Grants and contracts aren't required by law... since the government is being treated differently by the schools, they can treat the schools differently. If the schools have the right... so does the government. And again, they aren't telling the schools they can't speak out or be against them, they have ONLY asked for EQUAL treatment... if the schools don't want to give it, why should the government have to treat them fair?

It seems to me that you're confusing two separate issues here. I don't know if the school is right when it claims that the threat of withdrawal of funds constitutes a violation of the first amendment. That seems sort of tenuous to me. The other issue is whether or not the school being forced to allow the military its previous access to school facilities means that the military will be getting equal treatment or special treatment. It's fairly obvious that that is demanding special treatment; that the school ignore the discriminatory hiring practice which it would not tolerate from another organisation.

[Ming]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It seems to me that you're confusing two separate issues here. I don't know if the school is right when it claims that the threat of withdrawal of funds constitutes a violation of the first amendment. That seems sort of tenuous to me.

Correct... no leg to stand on...

The other issue is whether or not the school being forced to allow the military its previous access to school facilities means that the military will be getting equal treatment or special treatment. It's fairly obvious that that is demanding special treatment; that the school ignore the discriminatory hiring practice which it would not tolerate from another organisation.

Fine... they are allowed to make their statement... but then, the government has the right to make thier statement.

[Straybow]

The only difference is that the government holds the purse strings. The government could just as easily file a suit against them. This is making it a legislative decision instead of a judicial decision.

If, for example, a religious denomination refused to hire openly gay graduates because of first amendment right to their longstanding doctrines, and the schools denied them equal access to hiring fairs, they would have to file suit to make them change. They would have no other means to compel the schools to treat them fairly.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin
Special privilage. A university should not be forced to violate it's code of conduct to get federal funds. This sets a bad precedent. What's next? Universities getting funding pulled if they have abortion clinics on campus or do stem cell research? I have allways been agianst putting strings on grants to states, educational institution's, etc. It is basically extortion used by the federal government to get around constitutional restrictions on federal power.

What if that university had a code of conduct that said that racial mixing was to be avoided at all costs (as Bob Jones University did)? Should they deserve federal funding just like anyone else? Should they be able to sue the Federal Government because they feel that they aren't getting their "fair share" of federal educational largesse? Should they be able to refuse military recruiters because of the military's promotion of racial equality?

I agree completely with Ming. The don't ask don't tell policy needs to go, but that doesn't mean that the universities have a leg to stand on. Congress decides who gets money, for what and how much. That's a much firmer and better established principle in the constitution than gay rights or any of the arguments that the plaintiffs have brought to bear.