Equal treatment or special privilage?

[Sikander]

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.

Au contraire.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by 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...

Sure they have a leg to stand on. The First Amendment says that the government cannot demand that someone give up their rights to free speech in exchange for money that has nothing to do with the speech involved. Recall my example above: the government cannot have a policy of only giving contracts to Republican-owned businesses. But there is NO LAW that says the Government has to give ANY contracts to anyone...

That is an extreme case, but basically the same issue is in play here (except that it's a lot less clear that it's an issue of "speech"). The fact that the free speech issue is attached to money is relatively minor (though the government is defying all the precedent and trying to make it a big deal).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by civman2000

Sure they have a leg to stand on. The First Amendment says that the government cannot demand that someone give up their rights to free speech in exchange for money that has nothing to do with the speech involved

Are they concerned with the speech or its effects?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Are they concerned with the speech or its effects?

What do you mean?

[KrazyHorse]

It's not just a protest at the military's hiring practices.

It's also a direct action that makes the military's recruiting more difficult.

[civman2000]

It's not just a protest at the military's hiring practices.

It's also a direct action that makes the military's recruiting more difficult.

Well, that's what I mean when I say that the real challenge is to show that the issue is even about speech at all. My point is that if it is about speech, the fact that there's money attached to it doesn't make much of a difference.

[Ming]

Originally posted by civman2000
Sure they have a leg to stand on. The First Amendment says that the government cannot demand that someone give up their rights to free speech in exchange for money that has nothing to do with the speech involved.

As discussed, how does free speech come into play here... They are NOT restricting their right to say what they want... They are protesting against an action to limit their recruiters.

Recall my example above: the government cannot have a policy of only giving contracts to Republican-owned businesses.

Bad example... A better one would be the government withholding money from states that didn't adopt their guidelines in regards to setting speed limits on highways. Totally legal... and this is the same. They are making a decision not to sent contracts or grants to schools that won't give their recruiters fair access... They are not doing this based on what party somebody belongs to... but to an action. They are within their rights to do this, and have done so in the past in other situations.

That is an extreme case, but basically the same issue is in play here

No it isn't If they were withholding money from groups that were gay, then it would be. But this is based on actions... not the religion, political party, or lifesytle of the recepients.

The fact that the free speech issue is attached to money is relatively minor (though the government is defying all the precedent and trying to make it a big deal).

Again... free speech is NOT an issue here. This is about allowing equal access to the schools for their recruiters... A school can still say and publish anything they want against the military's position on gays...

If schools don't want to give that equal access... then the government doesn't have to give them grants or contracts... both are within their rights to do so.

[Arrian]

The schools are gonna lose:

Here is a good article on it

[civman2000]

Ming: I don't contest that it's very difficult to make the case that there is a free speech issue. What I'm trying to say is that if there is any, then the fact that it's a government grant rather than an outright mandate makes no difference. I read your previous posts as saying that the fact that it was a grant, rather than the weakness of the free speech case, was the principal reason they had "no leg to stand on".

[mindseye]

The real solution is to elect government officials who don't approve of discrimination against gays.

[Ming]

Originally posted by mindseye
The real solution is to elect government officials who don't approve of discrimination against gays.

I wish it was that easy... The real problem is with the military itself. The government can demand/legislate anything they want, but it will still come down to the military to act.

[Apocalypse]

The military really isn't as antigay as you think. Heck, watch Jarhead, you can even be openly gay. You just can't tell people you are.

[KrazyHorse]

I find it funny that gays aren't allowed in the US military (DADT policy aside) while women are.

The average gay man is damn sure to be a lot better suited for front-line infantry duty than is the average heterosexual woman.

[Apocalypse]

That's why women aren't allowed in combat roles and only in support roles.

[KrazyHorse]

I know. Which is an idiotic solution, in my opinion.

As we've all seen, a war without front lines means that everybody's on the front line.

I guess you can exclude Navy and AF, but anybody on the ground in Iraq is subject to attack at any time, with little to no warning.

If you're worried about the ability of a large section of your military to defend itself then you have a problem.