Bad News x2 March 6, 2006 Jill The governor of South Dakota signs the abortion ban into law. And the Supreme Court allows the federal government to coerce universities into allowing discriminatory military recruiters on campus.
It’s getting to be one of those days where you start thinking things like “is it time to leave the country or is simply avoiding the southern and more backwards of the midwestern states adequate?” The Supreme Court ruling suggests the former…
to coerce universities Coercing by withholding funds? I think the word you’re thinking of is “incentivize.”
The federal government isn’t forcing the universities to accept recruiters. If the universities don’t want recruiters, they can simply refuse to accept federal funding.
The federal government isn’t forcing the universities to accept recruiters. If the universities don’t want recruiters, they can simply refuse to accept federal funding. Well, it’s not quite that simple. Take the NYU Law example: We decided to forgo federal funding, and bar recruiters. Then Congress extended the law so that if even one financially independent section of the university blocks the recruiters and forgoes funding, the entire university loses funding. NYU as a whole couldn’t afford to go without the federal funding, and so the law school was forced to accept recruiters on campus. That doesn’t exactly seem fair, does it?
Gotta side with the Court re: the recruiter thing. However, if modern student had any freaking gumption they’d picket and then we might have a free speech case.
Diane, It’s getting to be one of those days where you start thinking things like “is it time to leave the country This is the same talk that liberals were muttering after the last election. Where are you going to go? Canada? Would you even qualify to immigrate there?
That doesn’t exactly seem fair, does it? I don’t see what’s unfair about it. The school is part of the larger university. Would it be ok for a particular school to discriminate against Blacks, and for the university to simply let it pass?
Tango: I do qualify and would be a definite shoe-in if I get one of the jobs I’m applying for. As it happens, the emigration rate from the US to Canada has increased over the past 5 years (ie since Bush took office), though it isn’t yet exactly a major flood: the rate of emigration to Canada has only increased three fold. On the other hand, the US is also leaking researchers and academics at a somewhat quicker rate, which could lead to problems sooner or later.
Leaving the US (or the more “backward” places) is the opposite of the right idea here. Not only would you be taking your vote and leaving more power to people who disagree with you, those people have nukes!
It’s not that hard for educated/skilled folks with a few years of paid work under their belt to qualify for immigration to Canada. Those of us who realise that “years of full-time education” doesn’t just refer to tertiary education, anyway. As for your comment in #7, disingenuous much?
Not only would you be taking your vote and leaving more power to people who disagree with you, Isn’t that what is happening with the conservative v. liberal fertility issue? The ideological migration from conservative values to liberal values is not anywhere close to 50%, so over time a political shift occurs, or simply exacerbates the imbalance now (21% liberal vs. 34% conservative.) On a related note, I’m surprised that none of the “PATRIARCHY” hating blogs have picked up on this essay by liberal demographer Phillip Longman published in Foreign Affairs this month – The Return of the Patriarchy.
Isn’t that what is happening with the conservative v. liberal fertility issue? The ideological migration from conservative values to liberal values is not anywhere close to 50%, so over time a political shift occurs, or simply exacerbates the imbalance now (21% liberal vs. 34% conservative.) Political ideology is inherited? I must be the milkman’s kid, then.
NYU as a whole couldn’t afford to go without the federal funding, and so the law school was forced to accept recruiters on campus. You take money from the federal government, there are going to be strings attatched. Way it goes.
Political ideology is inherited? Yes and no. The “Alex P. Keaton” syndrome isn’t so commonplace that political ideology becomes a random draw. Here is our take on a paper published in the The American Political Science Review which builds on the findings of heritability of religious zeal.
You take money from the federal government, there are going to be strings attatched. Way it goes. Right, and that’s fine. But the law school was willing to give up this money in exchange for not having JAG recruit here. The rest of the university would accept the mooney, and let the military recruit. That seems fair. The problem is that Congress expanded the rule so that if the law school doesn’t accept the money, the rest of the university — which would have let the recruiters on campus — loses it, too.
Well, then, we’re just going to have to have Republican babies raised by liberals. Only solution, you know.
Well, then, we’re just going to have to have Republican babies raised by liberals. 🙂 Do you really wish an Alex P. Keaton on the liberal parents you know? What a world of grief would await them. Imagine preparing to take the family to a peace rally and having your kid have his republican friends over plotting world domination or something. That would give parents nightmares.
You’re making an awfully big presumption, that there is no nurture involved. I can’t believe I’m so genetically different from my parents or some of my siblings that I turned out as a liberal while they turned out to be conservatives. Even my identical twin brothers, who share the same exact DNA, are polar opposites on the political spectrum.
You’re making an awfully big presumption, that there is no nurture involved. No such presumption is being made. This is the fallacy of genetic determinism – wherein any mention of genetic influence is presumed to mean that the entire phenomona is to be explained by genetics. Absolutely not so. However, it’s already quite clear that many phenomona are not able to be explained by strictly restricting the range to environmental inputs.
The problem is that Congress expanded the rule so that if the law school doesn’t accept the money, the rest of the university — which would have let the recruiters on campus — loses it, too. Maybe I’m not understanding the problem here. The feds are threatening to withhold money. This does not equal coercion. Your contention that it’s “not fair” notwithstanding, when an organization–even one with multiple divisions, like NYU–accepts money from the federal government, they are giving the government authority over every division. This is how power of the purse works. I’m sure it’s familiar from living with one’s parents. OTOH, there is a somewhat troubling clause in the unanimous decision, but it has nothing to do with the withholding of federal funds: …there is no dispute in this case that [Congress’ power] includes the authority to require campus access for military recruiters … Although Congress has a broad authority to legislate on matters of military recruiting, it nonetheless chose to secure campus access for military recruiters indirectly, through its Spending Clause power. So, according to the eight justices who voted in the case, Congress has the power to actually coerce universities to allow recruiters on campus. As opposed to just taking away their allowance.
Jill, your quarrel is with your university, not with the Feds. Your school is choosing a different path than the subsection of the school where you happen to attend. You guys in law are essentially being outvoted by the rest of the school. The idea that one section of a school can take federal money and restrictions, while other sections don’t, isn’t really workable. Money is fungible. But I encourage all liberal students to radicalize their schools on this issue. Nothing attaches the “patriotic American” tag to liberalism like rejecting the nation’s military forces. And yes, I AM questioning the patriotism.
Well, now if you could get the recruiters to direct their attention to the College Republicans I might feel a bit better about it. Heh
Oh and the SD abortion ban issue is just beginning. We obviously have not heard the last on it. I do see ominous clouds on the horizon though. It will not be pretty.
Well, now if you could get the recruiters to direct their attention to the College Republicans I might feel a bit better about it. Heh Okay, that ‘heh’ at the end probably indicates that you’re just kidding about this. (Ignoring that) Your statement reinforces the idea that college students aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions about joining up. Does anyone really think that college students are so stupid that the mere presence of recruiters on campus will overwhelm their ability to reason? But, I’m sure you’re just kidding. So, end rant.
Nothing attaches the “patriotic American” tag to liberalism like rejecting the nation’s military forces. So, how many College Republicans have joined up?
The feds are threatening to withhold money. This does not equal coercion. Your contention that it’s “not fair” notwithstanding, when an organization–even one with multiple divisions, like NYU–accepts money from the federal government, they are giving the government authority over every division. This is how power of the purse works. I’m sure it’s familiar from living with one’s parents. So is it coercion or not? What is the “power of the purse” if not coercion? Isn’t fairness some kind of American ideal or something? Manipulating institutions into acting against their consciouses doesn’t seem like appropriate behavior for parents – or our government.
Doubtless this abortion ban will end up in the Supreme Court, where Alito and Roberts will be waiting. Oh, you guys are pissed… It ain’t no coincidence–Bush set you up.
other ryan, It’s not coercion because the schools aren’t entitled to that money. The government doesn’t have to give them anything and it can attach whatever requirements it wishes. (Including, Jill, that the entire university community open their doors to recruiters.)
Does anyone really think that college students are so stupid that the mere presence of recruiters on campus will overwhelm their ability to reason? Have you been to a college campus lately? I can hardly believe that some of these people got into college. I will be one of those people who will be looking for jobs elsewhere when I finish my school. I’m a physics major and since this country loves women and science so much I am counting my blessings that I am good at a hard science which gives me some good options outside of the US.
Yes indeed, we need to have more brave Repugs Like Limbaugh who didn’t serve because of excess butt boils… Trent Lott who was being a cheerleader… Bush who forgot to take his flight physical… And yes let’s support our brave Veterans by cutting VA benefits and facilities. Let’s keep America safe by cutting funding to support first response. Liars and hypocrites.
So, how many College Republicans have joined up? I don’t know. How many College Democrats have? It’s not the College Democrats who are supporting the war and calling opponents unpatriotic, and then letting others fight.
I highly recommend that people write Gov. Rounds and give him a piece of their minds. Here’s the letter that I emailed him today: “Governor Rounds, Congratulations on passing a total abortion ban in your state. Congratulations are definitely in order, as the ban will force traumatized women and teenagers who have been raped to relive the brutality of their attacks day after day, as they carry their rapists’ babies to term. Congratulations on establishing a legal right to force young girls whose fathers have raped them to give birth to their own brothers. Congratulations in advance for increasing the number of women who will die each year from seeking illegal abortions (it has been proven that abortion bans don’t stop abortion; they just send it underground). Congratulations on increasing the number of unwanted children born in South Dakota – I’m sure that the affluent white population of your state can’t wait to adopt babies born to black and hispanic women who didn’t have the financial capability to raise them! I’m sure, Governor Rounds, that you yourself are prepared to adopt one of these children, since you enforced the ban so readily! You, sir, are a trailblazer; nothing says “culture of life” like passing a law that ruins the lives of those already born. Congratulations on pushing women’s rights back 33 years in your state. Most importantly, congratulations for establishing – once and for all – that the women of South Dakota are not people, just baby machines that happen to walk and talk. You have acted with deplorable self-righteousness, insisting that you are saving innoncent lives, without a thought for the innocent lives that this ban will ruin. How very proud you must feel, and how relieved I am that I live in California. Sincerely, Ginger Lime” If you’d like to send your own email, do so at http://www.state.sd.us/governor/Main/Contact.htm
Yes indeed, we need to have more brave Repugs So, how many College Republicans have joined up? I don’t know. How many College Democrats have? It’s not the College Democrats who are supporting the war and calling opponents unpatriotic, and then letting others fight. Oh, come on guys. 1. Joining up is not a serious measure of patriotism. 2. Not all College Republicans “support the war.” 3. Not all College Republicans call their opponents unpatriotic. BUT THE REAL POINT IS: This is the last place I would expect to find people arguing that real patriotism and bravery are confined to those who join up.
But what I take umbrage to is the assertion that liberals and Dems in general are cowards. The yellow elephant / chickenhawks are legion. Who toed the line, wanna see, visit this site.
BUT THE REAL POINT IS: This is the last place I would expect to find people arguing that real patriotism and bravery are confined to those who join up. Your argument is really only with TangoMan, who made the remark about patriotism=joining up. If he’s going to make such a ludicrous claim, pointing out that the young folks nominally on his “side” are being hypocrites about supporting the war but not joining up anyway is fair enough.
BUT THE REAL POINT IS: This is the last place I would expect to find people arguing that real patriotism and bravery are confined to those who join up. Who’s saying that? However, if one is going to loudly proclaim one’s support for the war, one should be ready to go fight it. I call opponents of the military unpatriotic. What makes you say that NYU Law and other schools trying to enforce their own nondiscrimination policies are “opponents of the military?” And in any event, what’s unpatriotic about opposing the military? Last I looked, the military was not the country.
Robert, that may be what you meant to say, but it is not in fact what you said. What you said is that folks who believe in banning recruiting on law school campuses to pressure the military to seek a change in the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy are unpatriotic. That’s not anti-military; it’s anti-discrimination against lesbians, gays and bisexuals even when that discrimination is by the military. Given your history of throwing “anti-semite” around wildly to mean “opposed to US support of Israeli policy,” your conflation of opposition to “don’t ask/don’t tell” with anti-military ergo unpatriotic is not surprising. Contemptible. But not surprising.
They’re not opponents of hte military per se, Robert. You should know better. I’m military. They’re opponents of the military’s policies. The two are not the same. I’m proud to be in the service of a country where the civilians can still protest against even the military itself, and do so without fear of anything but disagreement. For now, and forever, I hope.
Folks who believe in banning recruiting over a personnel policy are anti-military. Who sets the military’s personnel policies? Congress does. Who has upheld them? The courts. Are laws schools banning Congressional candidates from recruiting staff from law schools? HELL no. Are they discouraging their graduates from going to work for Congress? HELL no. Are they doing anything at all to “punish” Congress for its actions? Are they doing anything at all to “punish” the Courts for their acceptance of the actions? HELL no. Instead, they’re banning recruiters from one of Congress’ subject entities. The conclusion is eye-blisteringly obvious: the bias is against that subject entity, not a “protest” against the policy. If it was the policy, we would see a host of other actions being undertaken by the law schools, not one of which has taken place. It has nothing to do with gay and lesbian rights, and everything to do with an institutional bias against the military. The gay and lesbian issue is the most flimsy of smokescreens. These people oppose the US military, period. And people who are opposed to the military are unpatriotic.
Oh, yeah, and how obscene is it with all the chickenhawks around that Tangoman feels compelled to drag out the strawdemocrat? When a democrat does serve, he gets swiftboated by the rich white boys who doesn’t serve. Chew on this, Tangoman. I’m a female and I served. I’m liberal and I’m a feminist. I’m a feminst precisely and a liberal precisely because of the military.
Ginmar, they either hate you (if they think you have agency) or they pity you (if they think you’re a dupe).
if one is going to loudly proclaim one’s support for the war, one should be ready to go fight it. This is just plain wrong. A person can support a war without fighting in it. Similarly, a person can support a right to choose without ever having to choose. Also, a person can support a newspaper without writing for it. Generally, support for an organization or goal is not limited to employees of the organization or actual activists for the goal.
This is just plain wrong. A person can support a war without fighting in it. Similarly, a person can support a right to choose without ever having to choose. Also, a person can support a newspaper without writing for it. Sure. But if you’re going to be calling those who oppose the war unpatriotic or traitors or what have you, you better be prepared to offer a better reason for not serving yourself than “I had other priorities.”
Uh huh. OK, Zuzu, what actions has your law school taken to discourage its graduates from working for Congress, which is the entity that has agency on this question?
They don’t. But they don’t explicitly encourage it, either. You may be aware that law students are adults, and therefore any jobhunting they do is on their own initiative. However, the school itself has a policy of providing space, facilities, staff time and materials for recruiting only to those employers who do not discriminate, per the school’s own policies. Government agencies other than JAG rarely recruit on campus, simply because they have neither the resources nor the need to do so — because the best candidates are going to come to them. The military doesn’t have that advantage; they need to recruit. What, exactly, is so outlandish about asking them to conform to the school’s nondiscrimination policies before providing them with school resources for recruiting?
OTOH, there is a somewhat troubling clause in the unanimous decision, but it has nothing to do with the withholding of federal funds…So, according to the eight justices who voted in the case, Congress has the power to actually coerce universities to allow recruiters on campus. As opposed to just taking away their allowance. Why do you find this troubling, or even surprising, Shankar? Congress unquestionably has the authority, pursuant to its Constitutional power to raise and support armies, to enact a draft that conscripts Student X into the military against his will to fight a war halfway around the world. So why would it not have the authority to compel a university to allow Lieutenant X to stand on campus for an hour handing out literature and answering questions from interested students?
“Ginmar, they either hate you (if they think you have agency) or they pity you (if they think you’re a dupe). ” Robert, you need to apologize for being so goddamned condescending. I’m sorry, but you know? I don’t need to take this from you, of all people. Don’t tell me what they think or do. I’ll be the judge of that, thank you very much. You cannot begin to concieve of my experience. The only people I’ve had probelms with have been conservatives who freak out at the idea of a liberal feminist soldier who’s conversant with both the Geneva Convention the US Constitution. Well, that, and the operation of the .249 SAW.
“Folks who believe in banning recruiting over a personnel policy are anti-military.” You know, merely restating your thesis does not make it a fact. Do you have experience or analysis? I know from the letters I get that these people do in fact support the individual members of the military whatever their political affiliation, wish them well, and hope for their good fortune. Unlike the conservatives I’ve encoutnered, who have flung names at liberal service members, called liberals cowards, or swiftboated liberal service members. “Who sets the military’s personnel policies? Congress does. Who has upheld them? The courts.” Yeah, another dodge. I’m sorry, but if I’m pissed off at you and you blame your mother, you’re an idiot. Same thing here.
ginmar, Chew on this, Tangoman. WTF are you talking about? I’m guessing you’ve attributed someone else’s comment to me or you’ve misinterpreted something I wrote. If you still feel that I deserve your ire then please quote back to me what it was that I wrote that so offended you.
I don’t need to take this from you, of all people. Then don’t take it. If talking to me causes you such emotional distress, then don’t talk to me. You started a discussion with me, and when I respond to you, your first statement is to demand an apology because I’ve bruised one of the myriad sore spots that appear to constitute your entire public persona. That’s not an interesting line of conversation, and I don’t feel like taking it any further.
Well, it’s not quite that simple. Take the NYU Law example: We decided to forgo federal funding, and bar recruiters. Then Congress extended the law so that if even one financially independent section of the university blocks the recruiters and forgoes funding, the entire university loses funding. NYU as a whole couldn’t afford to go without the federal funding, and so the law school was forced to accept recruiters on campus. That doesn’t exactly seem fair, does it? How is the Solomon Amendment any different than the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, laws requiring states to raise the drinking age to get federal highway funding, and other similar laws that liberals love to bludgeon people with any different than this law? However, I don’t support the Solomon Amendment. The federal government should not be funding education at all. That is purely the responsibility of state governments, local governments, and private entities. But I encourage all liberal students to radicalize their schools on this issue. Nothing attaches the “patriotic American” tag to liberalism like rejecting the nation’s military forces. And yes, I AM questioning the patriotism. So are you a veteran or member of the US military, or are you just another 101st Fighting Keyboarder?
Robert, sweetie, you don’t know shit about the military experience of liberal women. Why do you pretend that it’s so? Oh, yeah, and suggesting that women are reacting emotionally rather than intellectually doesn’t make you look like a troll or anything. Try responding to what I actually said. You spoke about how people respond to the military. Are you military? Well, I am, and my experience alone invalidates your opinion. My exerience forms my opinion, my opinion informs my politics, nad you dismiss that as emotion. C’mon, Robert, do the quibbling that you do so well. You argue not to understand but to quibble. If I need psychological assessments from a guy who thinks that saying things like “Thanks for not killing it,” to a pregnant woman it will be a cold day in hell indeed. Not to mention the whole, “Oh, I just didn’t feel like it” thing where you dismissed women who thought long and hard about their future and their fate. In short, you’re still still being condescneding, and Amp isn’t around to kiss your ass and give you carte blanche.
I wonder, if recruiters called up all the evangelical churches in the area of their offices and ask to set up a table on Sunday morning, do you think they would get any invites?
Ginmar, I’ve made no claim to understanding anything about your military experience. I’ve made a claim about how the people who run elite law schools view you, and people like you. I am not “suggesting” that you had an emotional reaction. It’s empirically obvious. “I’m sorry, but you know? I don’t need to take this from you, of all people.” This isn’t a rational response; it’s an emotional response. If you don’t want people to observe what you actually say, don’t say it. I’m not dismissing your experience, which is honorable. I’m dismissing your ability to read for comprehension, and to argue, which are demonstrably weak. So, do you want to continue to fight and flail about your absurd misinterpretation of what I wrote, or do you want to address the actual question of what the leadership of elite law schools think of the US military?
It’s obvious only to you and your arrogance, Robert. Why don’t you try being honest for a change? Why don’t we talk about you and your arrogance about women rather than women’s reaction to you? As a matter of fact, I’ve dealt with these very people and to a man they are far more tolerable than conservatives like you. The liberals try and put aside their biases. The conservobots attack anybody that doesn’t kiss their ass and that of their agenda.
I wonder, if recruiters called up all the evangelical churches in the area of their offices and ask to set up a table on Sunday morning, do you think they would get any invites? Interesting question. It would probably depend on the part of the country, and on which evangelical branch you’re talking about. Some evangelicals lean pretty left, politically or theologically (not the same thing, but there’s lots of overlap). Some of those would probably think it was not really in keeping with their mission, or that they were a peace-oriented institution, or the like. Go down to Mississippi and find some Pentecostals? Probably would. And then other folks would fall between. So, it depends. How’s THAT for a definitive answer!
Robert, you have about zero idea of what ‘elite law schools’ think about recruiters of any stripe. To be perfectly blunt, ‘elite law schools’ are far less anti-military than they are pro-snob. Their opinion of JAG is not based on military policies; it’s based on the perception that you go into JAG because you were too poor to get an education without asking the military for help. A refusal to allow recruiters is not anti-military; it’s basic logic. 1. X law school requires all those seeking to recruit its students to adhere to a non-discrimination policy or be barred from recruiting on campus. 2. JAG does not adhere to X law school’s anti-discrimination policy. The obvious step 3 is “Therefore, JAG is barred from recruiting on campus.” Your step 3 is “But…but…it’s THE MILITARY, you pinko commies!” Maybe you have some logic in there that I’m missing?
Maybe you have some logic in there that I’m missing? Too easy – your 1st premise is superseded by the Solomon Amendment which compells conduct, not speech and doesn’t infringe on freedom of association. Further, the Constitution trumps all, Article I, Section 8.
NYU as a whole couldn’t afford to go without the federal funding, and so the law school was forced to accept recruiters on campus. That doesn’t exactly seem fair, does it? There is a very real possibility that without the military there would BE no NYU. Sometimes the change we wish for comes a lot slower than we would like. Have faith that the change will come. As for the other issue, I suppose you could take the optimistic stance that the time has come to force the 2 sides to sit down and work it out. If there can be no compromise than I am afraid the pendulum is going to swing as far the other way as it has the way it currently is.
Ginmar, I’ve made no claim to understanding anything about your military experience. I’ve made a claim about how the people who run elite law schools view you, and people like you. What Mythago said. You understand elite law schools about as well as you understand the military. By the way, the military is not being singled out by law schools. When I was in school a dozen years ago, the law firm of Baker & McKenzie, one of the biggest in the world, was just coming off a several-years-long ban from pretty much all the elite law schools because of sexual harassment during recruiting and discriminatory actions in hiring. Students still got jobs there, and Baker did off-campus recruiting, but the law schools were not going to even tacitly endorse their tactics by letting them recruit on campus. Eventually, they got their act together and they were allowed back on campus.
Leaving aside the debate over the Supreme Court decision, I’m interested in how colleges and universities with strict non-discrimination policies will implement the Federal requirement to allow recruiters on campus. While military recruiters would be granted the same access that other recruiters have, the university could make its non-discrimination policy very public at the same time. For example, suppose there was a job fair, with different companies and recruiters at tables in a big, public space in the student center. Imagine a statement on a poster which the university displayed next to the military recruiters’ table, to ensure that students know that the official military policy is as odds with the university’s beliefs . . . “The recruiters at this table are present at this job fair, despite the fact that their organization violates this University’s non-discrimination policy. We do not permit private companies with policies that enshrine discrimination — like those of the US military toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons — to take part in our job fairs. According to federal law, however, we cannot exclude these military recruiters unless we are willing to forgo every federal dollar that supports this university, including financial aid money, faculty research grants, and much more. So this recruiting table is here, despite the University policy. This university is appalled by any organization that would discriminate against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered persons – particularly when that organization is the government of the United States of America. Every student is free to talk with these recruiters, but we want every student to know that we do not support the discriminatory practices of the US military.” Pink would be a nice color for the poster, don’t you think? Or maybe a rainbow. Anything but olive drab.
Peter, And here is another sign that could be posted all over *several* campuses that tried to bar military recruiters: “Warning: Certain forms of expression are forbidden on this campus. By signing your student enrollment forms, you also agreed to the campus “Hate Speech Code”. Any attempts to express yourself in violation of the HSC can result in punishment, regardless of your constitutionally-provided right of Free Speech. The HSC is subject to change without warning, so please keep updated to avoid punishment.” Seriously, I have a big issue with campus administrators that whine that the university’s right to free speech is violated by the mere presence of a particular group while at the same time preventing, say, devout Mormons from expressing their heart-felt opposition to same-sex marriage.
But I encourage all liberal students to radicalize their schools on this issue. Nothing attaches the “patriotic American” tag to liberalism like rejecting the nation’s military forces. And yes, I AM questioning the patriotism. They aren’t barring the military because it’s the military. NYU Law bars the JAG recruiters because the violate the school’s anti-discrimination policy. Would you call it anti-patriotic if we refused to let the military in because they had a whites-only policy? It’s about our values as a school, and those values require that employers who recruit on campus not discriminate. Really do consider if you would make the same argument about an employer who discriminates on the basis of race.
Ginmar, they either hate you (if they think you have agency) or they pity you (if they think you’re a dupe). I’m glad you’re a mind-reader, Robert. It’s helpful, really. Ginmar, I’ve made no claim to understanding anything about your military experience. I’ve made a claim about how the people who run elite law schools view you, and people like you. I don’t run an elite law school, but I’m at one, and you don’t speak for me, Robert. You have no idea how people at elite law schools feel. I support the military. I wish the JAG recruiters didn’t violate our anti-discrimination policy, because I think it would be a really interesting job. In fact, I was scheduled to interview with them — but I cancelled it, not because I hate the military, but because I couldn’t justify working for an organization that discriminates. That’s my reasoning. Now quit claiming that you know how I feel.
Tip for white males*: Simply because your argument takes a certain form does not make it logical. You have to build in say, some actual logic, and your premises must be correct, and if they are disproven several times, you should not restate them, as that does not improve the logic of the statement. Also, facts are important- if the facts are against you, your argument is wrong. The amount of emotion is also not detrimined by form either, nor is emotion really a detriment if your facts and premises are right. Also,they *would* say that about discriminating against blacks,k,thx. *I very rarely see anyone else using the whole ‘if my form is right then I am free from all emotion, my argument is logical and my facts are right” thing. But anyone doing it, stop.