OPINION & EDITORIAL
Students must protest military policy
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jason Ebin:
- Students must protest military policy (March 6, 2006)
- Sensenbrenner wrong on immigration (March 27, 2006)
- Remember Reagan as school year comes to close (April 11, 2006)
- Media paint flowery picture (April 17, 2006)
- Students can help bring change in Darfur (May 1, 2006)
Related Stories:
- 'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)
- J.B. Van Holistic (August 31, 2007)
- Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
- Dean of Students office prioritizes safety (February 23, 2007)
- Career services a benefit for seniors (October 18, 2005)
by Jason Ebin
Monday, March 6, 2006
The United States Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG), which adheres to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," will be recruiting at the UW Law School, tomorrow, despite the Law School's policy that any employer using the Career Services Office must agree to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
A written statement hanging outside the Law School's Career Services Office explains why JAG is allowed to recruit at the Law School even though discrimination based on sexual orientation is not permitted under Wisconsin law or the policies of the University of Wisconsin.
"Representatives of the United States military are permitted to interview at the University of Wisconsin Law School because of the provision of UW-Madison Faculty Document 542, 5 December 1983, and because of the loss of federal funds to the University that would otherwise be imposed under federal statutes, commonly known as the Solomon Amendment."
Under the Solomon Amendment, if the Law School refused to assist JAG with recruiting, perhaps as much as $500 million in federal funding for the entire University would be jeopardized. Wrote Law School Dean Ken Davis in a letter to the entire Law School, "The Law School thus permits on-campus interviewing by military recruiters for pragmatic reasons."
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," passed into law in 1993, was a compromise to President Clinton's campaign pledge to completely lift the ban on gays, lesbians and bisexuals in the military. Nevertheless, the website SolomonResponse.org reports that, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a practical ban on gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving in the military, and that it "is the only law in this country that authorizes the firing of an American simply for coming out as gay, lesbian, or bisexual." Moreover, over 10,000 Armed Services members were discharged between 1994 and 2004 at a cost between one-quarter billion and $1.2 billion just to train replacements for those men and women fired simply because of their sexual orientation.
The Solomon Amendment, first passed into law in 1995, came when students on university campuses across the country were able to successfully block recruiters who discriminated from interviewing on their campuses.
Students and faculty across the country have responded to the Solomon Amendment in various ways. For example, Student Bar Associations have passed resolutions condemning military recruiting on campus; 36 laws schools and law faculties, including the University of Wisconsin's, have joined the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which is currently challenging the Solomon Amendment before the United States Supreme Court; and students have protested — most recently, while JAG was recruiting on campus, NYU student protesters gagged themselves with camouflage bandanas, while those who passed by were greeted with slogans like, "Quiet, discrimination in process," and, "Dick Cheney, let your daughter serve."
Students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison — which, according to Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., has a history as a leader in social justice advocacy — have not been silent on the discrimination in the military and the Solomon Amendment. In 1989, both students and faculty at UW approved resolutions that called for an end to the university's contract with ROTC unless the military agreed to accept homosexuals (the UW Board of Regents rejected the resolution). Protests were sporadic throughout the 1990s, but last April, Chancellor Wiley met with students who encouraged him to halt military recruiting, and ASM discussed a proposal for a resolution denying military and government officials from recruiting on campus due to discriminatory policies against gays and lesbians. Unfortunately, the resolution was rejected.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was a flawed compromise and needs to be repealed. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," should continue to be a high priority for students across the country. At UW, ASM should continue to discuss the Solomon Amendment and try to reach a compromise resolution. On campus, students should protest military recruiting until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," is repealed.
After all, the United States is supposed to be a world leader in civil liberties. It is about time that the United States follows in the footsteps of Britain, Canada, Australia, Israel and at least 24 other nations who have an open policy towards gay men, lesbians and bisexuals serving their country.
There was a time on this campus when student activism influenced the rest of the country. That was a time when enough students knew that getting a Wisconsin education meant more than going to class. After all, to borrow a line from Rep. Baldwin, "social justice can only be achieved if student activism marches on."
Jason Saltoun Ebin (jasonebin@aol.com) is a second-year law student.
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 5:52am):
Oh come on! Isn't it enough that we have gay cowboys? What else do they want, to be on the International Space Station? Heaven forbid! Why can't gays just stick to interior decorating, prime-time sitcoms and being film critics? Do what you do best. If you try to excel at everything, you'll only spread yourselves out too thin. Specialists are just the happiest people because they do what they enjoy doing. I mean, seriously.
Why strive to be the first gay astronaut just for the sake of having a gay astronaut? What could a gay astronaut possibly contribute to the space program that anyone else could anyway? Designer space suits? Spacewalk choreography? Pink solar arrays on satellites? How passe! Lavender seat covers in the space shuttle cockpit? Cognac to alleviate motion sickness? Just wait 'till you get back on Earth and barf your guts out on the tarmac in front of the news crews, like the straight astronauts have always done.
Stay on Earth for now. We haven't even found another planet that can support life yet. Let the breeders figure that one out first. No wait, here's an idea. Seek out and make contact with an extraterrestrial species that's every bit as gay as you are. THAT would surely show Mr. Straight just who's superior. Oh, those heteros will be stocking the soap dispensers at NASA with Pre de Provence faster than you can say "We have liftoff!" Go fellas, go fellas, go fellas...
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 9:08am):
Maybe some cartoons about gay military members would help?
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 10:25am):
I don't care about your version of social justice. In a free society you do not get to tell me what behaviours I have to accept. I can discriminate against people who pick their noses, smell bad, or wear S&M gear to interviews. Notice the difference. As our military has aged, the average age no longer being 19, acceptance of gay service members has increased. That is why don't ask don't tell works, just as hetero's in the military do not get to fraternize or commit adultery which restricts their sexual conversations and behaviour. Something most people who talk about this subject routinely ignore is that the sexual behaviour of hetero's also has restrictions in the Military code of conduct and can be the basis for court martial and discharge.
As for the Solomon act as the hammer to keep University's in line. I love it. Great bit of work forcing the liberal elites who are intellectualy vacant, although better spellers than I, to tow the line. I can just see the line forming to get out there and march right after they hit Starbucks for a double mocha frappachino.
When the left starts enlisting as Marines then maybe they will stop playing politics with soldiers lives.
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 10:39am):
The Supreme Court just ruled UNANIMOUSLY this policy is Constitutional. Read the decision before paint your banner.
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 11:36am):
"Oh come on! Isn't it enough that we have gay cowboys?..."
Maybe all they want is to be able to do the same things as straight people can do, have the same rights, etc. Straight guys can be interior designers, but gay guys can't do anything manly?
It's like saying black people just want to be the first to do everything to show Mr. White who's superior... your same comment could have been rewritten like that 50 years ago.
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 1:03pm):
Protest all you want, looks like the final decision is in.. It is simple really don't want the recruiters, then don't take the money!!!
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, 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 their professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court, said that the campus visits are an effective military recruiting tool.
"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," he wrote.
The ruling upheld a law that requires colleges that take federal money to accommodate recruiters. In addition, justices said that Congress could directly demand military access on campus, even without the threat of losing federal money.
Law schools had become the latest battleground over the "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
The ruling was announced on a day that the court was jammed with visitors from the military, all dressed in uniform. Justices heard arguments in the case in December, and signaled then that they were concerned about hindering a Defense Department need to fill its ranks when the nation is at war.
"This is an important victory for the military and ultimately for our national security," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice.
College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.
Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney for the challengers of the law, said that the case called attention to the military policy.
"We lost a skirmish in a much larger civil rights battle for the rights of gays and lesbians, which is a movement we are winning," he said.
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.
"Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students -- not to become members of the school's expressive association," he wrote.
The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money.
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.
"The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything," Roberts wrote.
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 1:31pm):
Right now we need as many soldiers as we can get. If letting gays in means we can kill more towel heads, then do it.
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 2:10pm):
"Let the breeders figure that one out first."
You kiss your momma with that mouth? Or did you come out of an artificial womb?
Anonymous (March 6, 2006 @ 2:18pm):
Elite homosexual warriors are an ancient tradition - I don't understand why there should be any problem now. They would have more to protect than most in the war against the Islamic fundies. Under Sharia they would be executed.
Rob Deters (March 6, 2006 @ 4:09pm):
Man, the rampant homophobia in the comments on this paper recently has been kinda shocking. It's a bit unfortunate this article came out on the day the Supreme Court ruled the Solomon Amendment constitutional in a unanimous decision (one justice not taking part). It boiled down to the federal government being able to attach strings to spending.
Jason is right though, attacking the policy is the only way to win this one. But keeping the recruiters off campus, that's a losing argument.
Anonymous (March 7, 2006 @ 12:45am):
Attaching strings to funding is a life long college student tradition, "You fly, I'll buy" in some form has been being said for as long as late night at Taco Bell has been available.
Do you really believe that federal tax-payers, you know the top 50% who pay 96% of the federal income taxes, should just keep ponying up and keep their mouths shut?
We have an all volunteer military and if you had actually ever served you might have noticed that don't ask don't tell works. In addition, being black is not a behaviour last time I checked. Oh for the good ole days when the message was that being gay was not defining it was only one aspect of a persons path. Now we have Gay-Accountants, Gay-Teachers, Gay-Firemen, Gay-Policmen when we used to just have Accountants, Teachers, Firemen and Policemen. Some of whom,as it turns out, happened to also be gay.
Good luck in changing that policy and while your at it see if you can change other aspects of the Military Code of Conduct to fit you liberal view. Maybe we can do away with uniform requirements, short hair requirements, performing in porn sites online, and fitness testing. I'm sure the army could use some poorly dressed fat hippies with a high sex drive to fight the war against Islamo-Fascism.
What would Eric Cartman say?
