Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Out-of-touch liberalism

The plight of some elite law schools to keep military recruiters off campus has little to do with gay rights and even less to do with free speech.

The free-speech argument used by a group of elite law schools to keep military recruiters off campus is so much antimilitary bluster in disguise. Schools that accept federal money are required by law to provide military recruiters the same access to students as corporate recruiters. The law schools don't want to give up the money, so they have challenged the law on constitutional grounds, saying they have a right to bar the military because it discriminates against homosexuals with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The school's logic didn't fare well under sharp questioning from U.S. Supreme Court justices last week. Representing the schools, Joshua Rosenkranz argued that the law forced them into "disseminating the military's message" of discrimination against gays. To the contrary, said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a school is "entirely free to convey its message." That could even mean organizing antidiscrimination protests aimed at the military recruiters on campus. "The remedy is not less speech, but more speech," Justice Stephen Breyer added.

The truth is, this latest battle in the cultural wars was never really about free speech or even gay rights. Certainly the schools have a legitimate grievance against the military policy of rejecting openly homosexual soldiers. In fact, such an exclusion of able, patriotic Americans who want to serve their country is not only discriminatory but impractical at a time when the military is strained to the limit. But students have been allowed, even encouraged by the political climate on campus, to convey that message vociferously.

Even if the law schools prevail, the antimilitary drumbeat won't end. Most of the elite schools that bar military recruiters banned ROTC from campus to protest the Vietnam War. An out-of-touch liberalism has been nurtured on many college campuses, and it is at least as mindlessly dogmatic as the opposition on the right that it ridicules.

"Army recruiters are not worried about being confronted by speech," said U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the federal government. Rather, the military wants "a fair shot at recruiting the best and the brightest."

That sounds like a fair balance of interests. If the law schools really wanted to make a difference, they would encourage their graduates to join the military. As lawyers inside military institutions, they would be in the best position to bring about change. They would also be doing their patriotic duty at a time when the all-volunteer military exacts an unfair sacrifice on young men and women with fewer choices and opportunities.

In a healthy democracy, rights are balanced with responsibility, and important debates are not silenced by clever but intellectually dishonest arguments. If that premise holds in this case, the law will stand.

[Last modified December 14, 2005, 00:14:15]