Supreme Court to Hear Case on Military Recruiters' Access to Colleges

[struggle4progress]

A case concerning colleges' right to receive federal funding but bar military recruiters from campuses because of disagreements over homosexual policy is scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court this session.


The 1996 "Solomon Amendment" provides for the government to deny federal funding to institutions of higher learning if they prevent ROTC or military recruitment on campus. In December, the court will hear a case arguing that the law impinges on the free speech rights of colleges and law schools. <snip>

At the heart of the controversy is the military's "don't ask, don't tell" homosexual-conduct statute. The military's policy prohibits homosexual conduct and forbids servicemembers from revealing homosexual orientation. The policy also forbids commanders from asking servicemembers about their sexual orientation.

However, many institutions of higher education forbid discrimination based on sexual preference. They look at U. S. laws governing the military's homosexual policy as discrimination. <snip>

http://www.blackanthem.com/World/military_2005101809.html

[2Design]

1. this could be good for gay rights n/t

[ManiacJoe]

2. I don't see the colleges winning this one.

This closely resembles a breach of contract suit. The colleges accepted the money in full knowledge of the strings attached; now they don't want to abide by the strings after taking the money.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. You are citing to a "military online news" source for a SCOTUS

.
You are citing to a "military online news" source regarding a SCOTUS case pending against the military? Oh.

_______________________________

edited to add: try this unbiased news source that was posted last month here in DU . . . it's got excellent hyperlinks to take the reader directly to first-hand sources
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x16602
(Jurist News, Wednesday, September 21, 2005)

.

[ManiacJoe]

4. You are kidding, right?

The quoting of the Pitt Law website is no more unbiased than the military news site. Both seem to be presenting the facts with limited editorializing, to the extent of the limited space they are giving the topic. However, the extra links on the Pitt site definitely make it the more informative page if you actually follow the links.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. No, I am not kidding. n/t

[struggle4progress]

5. Thanks! eom

[TaleWgnDg]

7. you're welcome, and Jurist News runs rss . . . if u have a feeder.