Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS hears the case for Military RecruitmentFollow

#1 Dec 06 2005 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Now it seems simple, that since colleges are awarded federal funding in the form of Pell and other grants and loan awards, that it should enable the government use of their buildings and certain resources for their use. The government wants to use these to recruit for the armed forces, since it's a good target audience, we're in a time of war, and numbers are down. However, some schools hold that to them, equal rights are paramount and that, just as they wouldn't allow any organization they consider discriminatory to solicit or demonstrate on campus, they don't want to allow the armed forces to solicit based on their exclusionary "Don't ask, Don't tell" stance on gays in the military. These are the facts as I understand them.

So today, they heard testimony regarding the issue. The court, even the liberals, seem overwhelmingly disposed towards the military's point of view.

Since this is the first I've heard of it, I was wondering... Any of you on the opposing side? What is the issue as you see it? Something I'm missing?

I'll check on the thread when I come home tonight. Toodles!
#2 Dec 06 2005 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll start by saying that I'm not particularly shook up one way or the other.

That said, the various grants and loans provided by the government are nominally for the good of the American people and students. I don't see why they provide an onus for the universities to provide space for government salespeople. Saying "Well, you get more money because we give out taxpayer money to taxpayers for their education" seems rather far-fetched reasoning to demand university real estate for their booth.

The decision to allow which solicitors on campus should be the choice of the school, not an entitlement claimed by whoever gives aid to the students.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Dec 06 2005 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
The court, even the liberals, seem overwhelmingly disposed towards the military's point of view.


I don't think they're gonna bite the hand that feeds them.


Waht else can they do about it?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Dec 06 2005 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
let them.

standing up for your country is nobel. butchering innocent human beings to push the agenda of an immoral addministraition is stupidity.

if, after all that has happened, college kids want to join the service, let them. we will call it just another way to get iddiots off the street, like motorcycles.

#5 Dec 07 2005 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,574 posts
Outside of 'events', the schools do NOT allow Visa to come set up and try to hook students on credit cards. Schools don't allow solicitors to walk the campus selling booty to students. Why should the military get to? The military essentially bribes students with the ******** propaganda of their tuition getting paid off by serving. They tell them good this, good that, blah blah.

Not only is it a distraction to studies having military recruiters approach you (Multiple times, mind you) in the library with your head in a book, it's bad enough they will follow you around harrasing you with their **** after telling them off. Smoking a cigarette? They come 'hang' with you and spew their ****, then follow you to the door wherever you are going.

Anyone else, for a company or for self, would be fined, and if continued like recruiters do, and are somehow allowed, they would be escorted off campus for harassment and solicitation.
#6 Dec 07 2005 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
When schools stop accepting federal monies, they may do whatever they like to the recruiters. I believe Mills College made the same decision when it was about letting men in. They stopped taking federal monies. Private institutions may ban whatever they feel the need to ban. Public institutions are not so lucky. However, if the students and faculty feel that threatened by it, they should organize. Set up a booth outside the recruiting office, assign shadows to follow recruiters around and counter the arguments. Bob forbid they refrain from litigation to attain their goals.
#7 Dec 07 2005 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Last I checked, the Department of Education and the Defense Department were seperate entities. I don't see where getting funding from one should allow every other US agency to to set up camp as they wish. Beyond which, Pell grants and the like go to students, not to schools. Using them as a reason is especially weak.

Like I said, I don't really care either way but that's a real sad argument to justify it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Dec 07 2005 at 3:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
I'm kind of neutral about it. It seems ridiculous to rule out the enlistment of openly gay people when you are desperately in need of warm bodies, but it also seems silly to take a moralistic stance that seems to have more to do with trying to keep your paying students at school than any real affinity with the GLBT movement.
#9 Dec 08 2005 at 8:31 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Last I checked, the Department of Education and the Defense Department were seperate entities. I don't see where getting funding from one should allow every other US agency to to set up camp as they wish. Beyond which, Pell grants and the like go to students, not to schools. Using them as a reason is especially weak.


Meh.

I really don't have much of a problem with it. There are probably structural concerns I could voice, but that would be extreme nit picking.

I really don't think military recruiters getting officers from colleges is the problem. It's the lying to poor kids to cannon fodder that needs to be challanged.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Dec 08 2005 at 9:41 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Last I checked, the Department of Education and the Defense Department were seperate entities. I don't see where getting funding from one should allow every other US agency to to set up camp as they wish.
Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, schools that receive federal funding are required to release students' contact information to military recruiters unless a student requests in writing that the information be kept private. Schools also are required to provide military recruiters the same access to students as college and employment recruiters receive.

The Portland, ME School Board just voted this week to limit the number of visits by Military Recruiters to seven a year. I doubt if they have put restrictions like these on college recruiters coming to their High Schools. Of course they can just tell them to go away if they get annoying.

My son is a HS Senior. Unfortunately I have little knowledge of what goes on during his school day, but as far as I know he has not "opted out" of having his name released. We've received a bit of "Join the Military" type propaganda in the mail but it gets lost among the stacks of college junk mail he receives daily.

Edit: Remember - i before e, except after c.

Edited, Thu Dec 8 09:45:00 2005 by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Dec 08 2005 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
I really don't have much of a problem with it.
I stated as much myself -- I saw many a recruiter during both my high school and college stints -- but I still think it's a weak rationale.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#12 Dec 08 2005 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good


I am sorta baffled why the military really cares so much. If I was at Harvard Law School, or NYU, which are two of the schools mentioned in all of this, I uhm...wouldn't be joining the military. I think I would be more inclined to accept a job at a nice law firm at 150 thousand a year starting salary. Might just be me though. The people that want to be involved in JAG are probably just going off to the recruiters themselves. How much is not getting help from these schools hurting their recruitment?

If you enlist, they will pay back your loans. I do mean enlist though, not get a commission. If I had gone through all that schooling, I'll be damned if I don't get a commission. I do know people though, who enlisted with college degrees just for that reason. They start as specialists instead of privates, but still. You can't go on to be an NCO until you have served a set amount of time.

I knew openly gay people in the military. Military people, as a whole, really don't care that much. It was the military of 20 years ago that would beat the crap out of gay men, not now. There might be isolated incidences, but really, no one cares. Why does the government care so much? The military has always been at the forefront of this sort of thing; they were integrated long before that was the norm. *shrug*




#13 Dec 08 2005 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I am sorta baffled why the military really cares so much. If I was at Harvard Law School, or NYU, which are two of the schools mentioned in all of this, I uhm...wouldn't be joining the military.


Lots and lots of Harvard kids join the military.

I did.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Dec 08 2005 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The military has always been at the forefront of this sort of thing; they were integrated long before that was the norm. *shrug*


Um, 1948. Not exactly trailblazers there, allthough they did almost beat professional baseball...


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Dec 08 2005 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good


Well, I certainly don't know what the statistics are of young lawyers that join out of harvard, what I said was just a guess, and I sure as hell wouldn't do it.

What I said about integration was in reference I suppose to the Meredith Riots in Oxford, Mississippi back in the 60's. Kennedy ordered the 82nd Airborne down there, and ordered the generals to leave their african american soldiers behind. The general tore up the orders and took them anyway, because he believed it was wrong, and because he believed it was unfair to force soldiers that were used to working with other soldiers to stay behind. I didn't know an exact date of integration of the military, I just assumed based on what I know.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 231 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (231)