Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Military In University Recruiting Case

Posted on | March 7, 2006

I have let the whole Supreme Court decision upholding the federal government’s ability to withhold funding from universities which deny military recruiters access to their campus in opposition to the "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy barring homosexuals from serving openly digest in my brain for the day. However I have to break away from some of my fellow gay bloggers and support the decision because it is correct. This issue is not about "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and a lot of people fail to see that. This is about a business arrangement between these schools and the federal government that dictates the federal government receive certain things, like access for military recruiters, in exchange for funds. So if a university decided to bar those recruiters they do not fulfill their obligations under the agreement and thus the federal government is justified in withholding the funds from those institutions. One thing to note is that it did single out the military for different treatment because they were the only employer that was singled out for banning due to anti-gay policies.

I find it rather silly that the argument against the Solomon Amendment being on the basis of First Amendment rights. The presence of the military recruiters can be mitigated by things like official statements from university officials disavowing the university’s support for recruitment and reaffirming the fact that they are required by law to allow recruiters on campus and thus their presence is not by choice. There is also the more costly route by sacrificing the funding as well and thus be allowed to bar recruiters from campus.

This is the second time I find myself supporting a decision against gays and lesbians as I also agree with the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision back in 2000 which affirmed that Boy Scouts’ ability to legally bar homosexuals and atheists from being members. However I see these decisions in a bigger picture beyond the gay/lesbian issue. For example after BSoA v. Dale, the Boy Scouts faced a lot of public backlash from various entities in response to their barring of homosexuals. Donors ceased funding them, they stopped receiving perks, and other such things. I support that backlash because the rights affirmed in BSoA v. Dale work both ways for the Boy Scouts.

The courtroom is not the place to make "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy go away. The proper place is in the halls of Congress. We already know "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" is a bad policy because it costs taxpayers an asinine amount of money and costs the military time and talent such as was the case with former soldier Kyle Lawson who was on track to specialize in the Arab language which is obviously something the military is in desperate need at this time. Yet with all the facts and the opinion polls, individuals like Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee and continues to block a bill submitted by Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) which would repeal "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" from being considered, stand in the way. If Hunter, who recently got his ass handed to him by a Servivemembers Legal Defense Network staff member, refuses to put his homophobia aside then the Republican leadership needs to remove him from that committee given his views run counter to the best interests of the armed services or the voters in his district need to replace him.