On Sept. 29, The Herald reported that Harvard Law School allowed military recruiters onto its campus this fall in order to retain millions of dollars in federal funds. The article quoted numerous Harvard Law students and administration members who portrayed the federal government as a bully who used its economic leverage to endorse a specific social agenda in private universities.
These students express a reasonable fear of excessive federal meddling. However, these most recent condemnations of federal actions are needless. Contrary to the beliefs of many alarmists, allowing military recruiters onto a college campus jeopardizes neither the academic mission of the college nor the civil liberties of students. True, the military endorses certain unsavory policies - "don't ask, don't tell" comes to mind. Even so, driving recruitment off campus would do little to change these policies and would only strain the relationship between the federal government and higher education.
The relationship between the government and universities can't be portrayed in black and white. Private universities and the federal government enter into funding agreements voluntarily in the hopes of achieving mutual benefits and academic reciprocity. This levelheaded stance backs the 1996 Solomon Amendment, which states that the government has the right to refuse federal grants to universities that do not allow ROTC or military recruitment on campus. Even if only a specific school - like a law or business school - begs off recruitment, the government will refuse funds to the entire university.
Over the past few years, groups including the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights and the Society for American Law Teachers have repeatedly challenged this law. These groups oppose recruitment at law schools since they feel recruitment places their universities' imprimatur on the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. To allow recruitment on campus, they contend, would violate the American Association of Law Schools' anti-discrimination statute, which demands that member law schools not only prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but also that the schools require the same policy of any employer to which it grants access.
Ardent civil libertarians mischaracterize the Solomon Amendment as promoting an unjustifiable intrusion into private institutions. Yet the government requests very little in return for the millions it provides in funding. It doesn't ask that schools endorse the message of their military, only that they provide information about it. As Princeton Provost Christopher Eisgruber recently told the Daily Princetonian, "Princeton is committed to principles of equal opportunity, including with regard to sexual orientation, but we do not believe that our opposition to the military's policies should interfere with the ability of interested students to pursue military careers."
Few support the armed forces' position on LGBT candidates; "don't ask, don't tell" represents a bigoted and inequitable philosophy. Even so, picketing and castigating campus military recruiters who are just trying to do their jobs does little to help the cause. Furthermore, suggesting that colleges decline federal funds is just self-defeating; it will neither advance academic goals nor repeal military policies.
Activists should continue to directly challenge military policies in legislatures, in newspapers, in Washington, in courtrooms - but not at college career fairs. If military recruiters are refused on campus, the government will have even less incentive to allocate money to private institutions than before. If the Supreme Court were to strike down the Solomon Amendment, it would do little to address "don't ask, don't tell," but do much to weaken federal support of higher education. While I empathize with gay activists and civil libertarians, they've chosen an inopportune battleground.
In an age where a high school diploma will barely earn a worker minimum wage, increased federal support of higher education is imperative. For the past 60 years, generous federal grants have made U.S. colleges among the best in the world. Jeopardizing an important source of funding at this time would be shortsighted and unnecessary. Hosting military recruiters in the bowels of the Career Development Center is a small price to pay for private universities in the United States to remain competitive globally.
The Supreme Court will determine the constitutionality of the Solomon Amend-ment this December in the case FAIR v. Rumsfeld. The Roberts Court should reaffirm that the relationship between the government and higher education ought to be a quid pro quo, as it has been in the past and should remain in the future.
Perhaps even more important than the specific issue to be addressed this December remains the negative attitude on campuses towards the armed forces. Even if "don't ask, don't tell" no longer existed, there probably would remain outright hostility on many campuses towards military recruiters and ROTC. Students and administrators should remember that the government has no immediate incentive to pay the bills of private universities. They've scratched our back - it's only right for us to scratch theirs.
Nicholas Swisher '08 is a history concentrator.
