I know I have a lot of work to do and not enough time to do it between now and Wednesday. But I just want to post a brief note congratulating the Supreme Court on upholding the Solomon Amendment. Basically, law schools which receive federal dollars must grant military recruiters the same recruiting opportunities as private firms notwithstanding the "don't ask don't tell" policy. While the court ruled along the lines of "conduct vs speech," declaring the Solomon Amendment regulates the method which falls into the acceptable course of action on part of a law school while not barring its right to openly denounce the military's treatment of homosexuals, I personally come to the same conclusion via a different a perspective - that of a student. To summarize the argument of the S. Court, however, it is quite simple: you may say what you like but you may not do what you like, in light of the fact that you receive federal dollars. But back to how I personally see this:

Whose right is it for a law school to censor my recruitment opportunities on behalf of a policy which may or may not affect me? You could make the argument that discrimination affects everybody - but that is based upon social mores and not law. Discrimination is unfair, but so is life and so, at times, is the law. Forgetting for a moment the discrimination that homosexuals arguably face when joining the military, does the fact that the silent discrimination of minorities, women and those who do not fit the stereotype of a "conservative WASP ivy league lawyer" prevent private firms from recruiting? The answer in short is no. While it is a stretch to call it legal hair splitting - the difference between silently advancing discrimination/prejudice and openly codifying it (and lawyers make plenty of money arguing these types of minutia) are in essence the same thing. It is almost an absurd case of reverse discrimination (though this argument is based upon social mores rather than law) to restrict military recruting on campuses for this flimsy reason.

That the school wittingly agrees with the government to a contract of allowing recruitment by millitary and government branches in exchange for federal dollars seems to me to be moot and just icing on the cake to why the Solomon Amendment should stand. This alone should make it painfully obvious why a law school which receives these federal funds ought to comply. Being in contract with the government is arguably no different from being in contract with a private party or corporation.

Bravo.