REGARDLESS of how one feels about extending our country's military might abroad, most of us would agree that it is critically important and morally imperative to support the men and women serving in uniform. Not since our grandparents' generation has our security been so dependent on our armed forces' success, now that their long-term overseas deployment is a foregone conclusion. Lately, however, several colleges and universities have been hindering the military's ability to contact intelligent and well-educated potential recruits to help it respond to the new threats of the 21st century. Not only are these schools' efforts misguided, the target of their ire is misdirected.
In response to charges that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy discriminates against gays, and is thus incompatible with the core values of academia, administrators at some colleges and universities have been ejecting ROTC programs from their campuses. Two weeks ago, an anonymous group of law schools and professors -- calling themselves the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights and the Society of American Law Teachers -- filed a lawsuit against the federal government for cutting funds to schools that bar military recruiters from campus.
Under the Solomon Amendment that Congress passed in 1995, the federal government may withhold money to any college or university that obstructs military recruiting. The lawsuit claims that this denial of funds violates the school's First Amendment rights to academic freedom.
Whether or not one agrees with the military's policy on homosexuality, when universities give recruiters the boot, they are hurting the long-term professionalism of our armed forces, and hawks and doves alike should object. This matter really comes down to one question: Should the military recruit from our top schools people who will be the officers that lead our soldiers in battle, keep the military from running afoul of international conventions and prevent human rights abuses? Or should it recruit from South Dogpatch Community College instead?
Aside from the collateral damage universities inflict when they prevent the military from recruiting the best and the brightest, the universities' actions aren't even directed at the right target. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was invented by politicians, spearheaded by President Bill Clinton as one of his first initiatives in office, and passed by Congress in 1993 under the guidance of former Senator Sam Nunn, D-Ga., as part of a military appropriations bill. Thus, the military is simply implementing the orders and policies of its civilian leadership and overseers.
If universities want to voice their opposition to "don't ask, don't tell," perhaps they should bar Democratic officials from campuses for the policy promulgated by their former fearless leader. Or perhaps they could disinvite members of Congress for their continued tacit support for the policy, or at the very least those members who explicitly voted for it.
Granted, prior to Clinton's policy change, the official Pentagon policy was an outright ban on homosexuality. But this only goes to show that the politicians have the ultimate say over how the military treats homosexuals. Instead of taking their gripes out on military recruiters, universities would be better served by picketing Congress and the White House.
What is particularly ironic about the recent lawsuit is that just months ago, universities were joined hand-in-hand with the military in urging the Supreme Court to keep affirmative action admissions programs legal. And where the military is generally acknowledged to have done a better job at integrating minorities, academia, as we have seen here at the University, is still struggling to figure out how to address racial tensions. Before universities start pointing fingers at the military for discriminatory practices, perhaps they should first look in the mirror.
In any event, the universities' lawsuit does not have anything to do with First Amendment rights or academic freedom by any stretch of the imagination or contortion of the Constitution. The government is not forcing universities to accept or to refrain from expressing any particular viewpoint with regards to its policies either by decree or by the power of the purse. Rather, it is simply asking the universities not to bite the hand that feeds them.
(Eric Wang is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 2 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
