On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that law schools could not bar military recruiters from their campus. The Cato Institute (often described as “conservative” but in actuality libertarian) contrasted that decision with that which found that the Boy Scouts could discriminate.
The Solomon Amendment was enacted by Congress to require that universities which receive federal funding cannot refuse access to military recruiters. The schools argued that these recruiters were for institutions that discriminate in employment against gays and lesbians and, since they did not allow non-military discriminatory employers, they should be able to restrict access to military recruiters as well.
The administration argued, and the SCOTUS agreed, that the universities’ free speech was not infringed because they could simply refuse to accept the funds if they disagreed with the military policy.
Pragmatically, the result may positively impact the gay community. It may result in a higher visibility of protest on campus. It may also result in a higher percentage of military lawyers that are trained in universities where there is a strong culture of acceptance of gay people. In the long run, this may hasten the demise of officially sanctioned discrimination in the military against gay persons.
However, the decision bothers me. Setting aside for the moment the issue of discrimination, in effect the SCOTUS has said that the federal government may tax its citizens and provide services, but that the funding of those services can be tied to acquiescence to an administration’s political policy. If you protest a policy, you may lose your funding.
I am not a proponent of increased governmental collection for and administration of services; and one reason is demonstrated here. Nonetheless, there are certain projects of a research nature that benefit all of a society and for which it is reasonable to have the government fund them and research institutions such as universities perform them. While it seems that this decision by SCOTUS only impacts access by military recruiters (an administrative activity), it should be considered very concerning whether it is a harbinger of future efforts to tie federal funding to the educational content of universities.
I do not think it unlikely that some legislative body (probably on a state level) will now try to tie unrelated research funding to the teaching of ex-gay propaganda or other religious creed in private universities.
I do not think it unlikely that some legislative body (probably on a state level) will now try to tie unrelated research funding to the teaching of ex-gay propaganda or other religious creed in private universities.
It has already happened, Tim – you cannot get federal funding for HIV prevention activities unless you agree with the current administration’s “goals” for such funding – which means no mention of, or distribution of, condoms.
CPT, true. This is one good example of how the administration ties funding to its unrelated polical, and even more concerning social, agenda.
However, the point I was making is that until now, the educational content of private universities has been considered off limits. I’m concerned that soon Congress will feel free to micromanage educational content. For example, “if you accept federal funds, you must not teach positions that hinder our efforts to fight the war on terror” is pretty likely. Fortunately, so far, while universities are criticized for allowing dissenting speakers, their funding has not been tied to political belief.
It’s but a small step from forbidding “obstructing the war on terror” to forbidding “Anti-American sentiments” to forbidding “socialist propaganda” and right on to forbidding “anti-family attitudes”.
“However, the decision bothers me. Setting aside for the moment the issue of discrimination, in effect the SCOTUS has said that the federal government may tax its citizens and provide services, but that the funding of those services can be tied to acquiescence to an administration’s political policy. If you protest a policy, you may lose your funding.”
Unfortunately, this isn’t just “political policy,” it’s the law. It’s sort of a mirror image of the situation in Massachusetts where Catholic Charities wants to skirt the law so they can discriminate in adoption placements.
Boo
“It’s sort of a mirror image of the situation in Massachusetts where Catholic Charities wants to skirt the law so they can discriminate in adoption placements.”
I’m not quite in agreement that it mirror’s Catholic Charities.
In the CC situation, they wish to receive state funding for a specific purpose (adoption services) and to discriminate with that funding. The State of Massachusetts has said “you can discriminate but not with our money”.
It’s not just unrelated discrimination, but direct discrimination with state money.
The universities, however, received Federal funds for unrelated projects. They did not receive Federal funds for a military project and then say we will discriminate against the military with those funds.
They sought to protest a law (and the administration’s support of that law) by denying access to the military. The SCOTUS has eliminated the most effective voice the universities had for protest.
Had MA said “you receive our money for adoptions so you must allow gay persons to marry in your church”, this would be a closer comparison.
But the Catholic Church is not forbidden from protesting against gay adoption, gay marriage, or anything else. Nor is it forbidden from discrimination in marriage or from denying access to the eucharist to gay people. It is simply forbidden from discrimination with funds provided by the state to facilitate adoption.
Though you do make a good point and there certainly is some comparison in concept if not exactly a mirror comparison. This whole issue is why I am discouraged to see goverment’s ever increasing involvement in taking care of every aspect of a person’s life (never more evident than in the current administration). It becomes too subject to the whims of political pressure.