By
A group of law schools are suing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The case, decided in their favor and appealed to the Supreme Court, claims that, because the United States military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy constitutes discrimination, in violation of the schools’ non-discrimination policy for on-campus recruiters, the law schools should be allowed to bar military recruiters from campus. They wish to do so while still receiving the federal funding that the government has threatened to withhold should the military not be allowed to court law school students.
Assuming that the law schools are correct in their estimation that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is inherently discriminatory, they are left with few other options than to oppose this violation of their own, internal standards of ethics. While the broad principled gesture that these schools purport to be making would involve an outright refusal of the federal government’s request, whatever the cost, it is unlikely that any school is willing to go so far. This court case is obviously a more pragmatic third way, in which the law schools don’t violate their own policy, but seek to maintain federal funding by attempting to force the military to change instead.
Is this effort fundamentally good or bad? It is hard to be sure. There certainly are clear comparisons to be made between this movement and the slow, tumultuous introduction of African-Americans and women into the military.
Nevertheless, there is also a compelling argument to be made that the military has a pressing need to discriminate, in the same way that basketball teams recruit by height, and fire departments by a candidate’s ability to drag 100 pounds of dead weight out of a burning building.
Whether the military’s concerns about homosexual soldiers are legitimate is also a difficult matter to settle; civilians have little of the expertise and understanding necessary to effectively provide oversight to military policy, but the government does not often seem interested in regulatory or disciplinary action, particularly if the military stands to lose face in the process.
And so, law schools are left in a difficult position. Change in any governmental organization comes with patience and negotiation, and academia’s relationship with the federal government is already strained. Moreover, this suit might set a precedent for law schools and medical schools withholding access to military recruiters as a form of protest over any number of grievances. The next time military recruiters are refused access to a law school, will it be in response to an unpopular war, on the grounds that this military action violates the school’s policy of non-violence?
Undoubtedly, the nation has regressive attitudes regarding homosexuality. However, in this case it sounds a great deal as if the recent anti-patriotic sentiments so commonly echoed about the Iraq war are fueling the complaints; opposing the military in a fatuous show of diversity, potentially at the expense of funding and student loans, is cheap theatrics, not good policy.
