Monday, March 06, 2006

In Defense of Principle on Campus

Back from Geneva, a third-world backwater where a decent corned beef (sorry, corned boeuf) sandwich is not to be found. Anyway, I see that the Court ruled 8-zip against the campus lefties in
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, so that a threat to revoke federal funding is not coercion or a threat to free speech, or blah, blah, blah, as the lefties continue to oppose ROTC and miltary recruiting efforts on campus because of don't ask-don't tell policies toward homosexuals. So: Will the campuses deny themselves such federal dollars so as to stand for their principles? Just asking.
Off to Berlin Saturday to talk about China. Corned beef will not be hard to find.

12 comments:

James Elliott said...

Personally, I agree with a Marine Lieutenant I know in the First Recon.

"Getting more of us (he graduated from Yale) into the military is key to liberalizing it."

Most lefties I know don't mind ROTC. Don't end up equating Harvard with the whole spectrum.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...

Could this ruling have any effect on "free speech zones" (or anti-intolerance codes) that exist at many universities?

My line of thinking is that the 1st amendment cannot be trumped by a university...but then again, I am not a legal scholar.

Hunter Baker said...

My law school at the University of Houston engaged in this kind of crap. I suppose they'll be having a change of policy. I think it was actually pretty common and not limited to Ivies.

James Elliott said...

"Could this ruling have any effect on "free speech zones" (or anti-intolerance codes) that exist at many universities?"

Um, I'm pretty certain that "free-speech zones" encompass the whole campus, at least at public universities. At least, I know that's why the police officer protects that guy over by the water fountain who keeps telling me I'm going to hell.

If it did, I wonder if it would apply to the "free speech zones" in places like Salt Lake City, where the city just sells the public land to Mormons to prevent public gatherings.

And while you brought 'em up, what about confining protesters to certain areas? Seems to me the right only gets worked up about free speech when it's a specific issue.

Matt Huisman said...

In case you were serious...

Here's a couple free speech zone links:

UCLA, etc.

SCC

James Elliott said...

Curious. It appears more widespread than I thought. I know it's not uniform across university systems (my undergrad was at a UC, and there was no such zone - just a few popular, visible places more frequented than others).

I wonder what the substantive difference is between these and, say, requiring a permit for assemblies. Or with penning up protesters into certain fenced-off "free speech zones."

Kathy Hutchins said...

Most lefties I know don't mind ROTC. Don't end up equating Harvard with the whole spectrum.

The real issue here was access to law school campuses. The Association of American Law Schools officially requires member law schools to deny campus access to employers who discriminate of the basis of all the usual categories, including sexual orientation. They held off on enforcing it in this case while Rumsfeld v. FAIR was litigated. If SCOTUS had upheld the 3rd Circuit yesterday, JAG recruiters would be barred from virtually every law school in the country this morning.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...

Thanks for the links Matt ... I was in a rush yesterday.

Seems to me the right only gets worked up about free speech when it's a specific issue.

Ditto for the left. How 'bout we just read the 1st amendment and go by that?

Tlaloc said...

"How 'bout we just read the 1st amendment and go by that?"

Speaking of which can somebody explain to me how it is that campaign contributions constitute free speech?

Tom Van Dyke said...

The most fascinating thing is how many law professors were squarely behind a legal theory that got whacked by the Supreme Court 8-zip.

One wonders what they're teaching their students and if it's malpractice.

The Classic Liberal Anonymous said...

The most fascinating thing is how many law professors were squarely behind a legal theory that got whacked by the Supreme Court 8-zip.

Yeah, but what about the lost "swing vote", huh? huh?

emil shue said...

The recent Decision In Rumsfeld versus FAIR points out what passes for legal education in many of our law schools. These distinguished and learned professors of law embarrassed themselves by advocating positions that even Ginsburg, Stephens, Souter, Bryer and Kennedy could not abide. If they are paid to be propagandists for the extreme left, then they are earning their money. But if they are paid to be objective, astute analysts of courts, the law and legal trends, then they should resign their positions, return their salaries and start their own moveonprofessor.edu blog. It seems that higher education these days is primarily higher in cost than quality. Students pay an enormous sum of money to be educated by these scribes, and the quid pro quo is sorely lacking. The ultimate victim of course, is our legal system. If our lawyers are indoctrinated rather than educated, the entire profession and legal infrastructure suffers. Perhaps these professors should consider changing the name of their organization by prefacing it with University Nutcases…this at least would bring some truth to their acronym…UNFAIR.