Paul L. Caron

Tuesday, March 7, 2006

Reactions to Rumsfeld v. FAIR

Reactions to the Supreme Court's unanimous opinion yesterday in Rumsfeld v. FAIR (blogged yesterday), which upheld the Solomon Amendment's requirement that law schools allow military recruiters the same access to students afforded any other recruiter or forgo certain federal funding:

Law Schools:



New Cases | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reactions to Rumsfeld v. FAIR:


To John Dunshee's comment above -- no, I do not consider the recruiters themselves to be bad -- I find fault with the government's position, that we (the US) will not allow gays in the military. The rule offends me, and it's stupid.

Posted by: eli bortman | Mar 8, 2006 6:44:17 AM

I'm not a lawyer so I suppose I don't understand the ruling but it seems to me FAIR contended three things that the Court refused to accept.
1. All academics have a constitutional right to a comfortable life to be paid for by the taxpayers.
2. Taxpayers have no right to contest funding of propaganda with which they disagree.
3.The government must suppress the free speech of anyone who dares disagree with the academic comunity.

I think academics should note this because unless reform comes soon, defunding will.

Posted by: Ken Hahn | Mar 8, 2006 3:41:42 AM

So Eli, if I understand you correctly you consider military recruiters as "bad people"?

Some of us feel that way about lawyers.

Posted by: John Dunshee | Mar 7, 2006 7:11:41 PM

Seems like the correct decision. Those of us who prize free speech should take comfort in the admission by the Solicitor General that schools can point out what bad people are recruiting. The Court says: "See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (Solicitor General acknowledging that law schools "could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests"). "

Posted by: eli bortman | Mar 7, 2006 1:45:27 PM