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.
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.
10 comments:
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.
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.
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.
"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.
In case you were serious...
Here's a couple free speech zone links:
UCLA, etc.
SCC
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."
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.
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?
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 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?
Post a Comment