Contributors
THE CABAL
ROTC, Gays, and the Solomon Amendment |
|
| Once again, Democrats sell out gay people | |
 by Daniel Koffler, January 15, 2008 |
|
There was a bizarre moment in the Democrats' Nevada debate, in which Tim Russert asked all three candidates if they would enforece legislation that's been on the books for years depriving funding to academic institutions that don't support ROTC programs. And who could be against that? So all three candidates, predictably, answered yes.
Neither Russert nor anyone else at the debate even hinted at the subtext to this question, namely, the reason that many schools, including essentially every prestigious school in the country, do not have ROTC programs, is the prohibition on gays serving openly in the military. The original incarnation of the legislation Russert mentioned, the Solomon amendment of 1996, merely blocked federal funding to any sub-element of a university that disallowed ROTC or military recruitment, and only to such a sub-element. So Yale Law School, for example, could have lost funding if it chose not to allow military recruiters access to its careers website. But the Yale chemistry department, where a lot of important cancer research goes on, which relies heavily on government grants, and which has nothing to do with military recruitment, would not suffer.
After George W. Bush came to office in 2001 with two houses of Congress in Republican control, the Solomon amendment was revised so that an entire university would be deprived of all federal funding if any sub-element within it did not acquiesce to military recruitment. Both the intent and the effect was to blackmail law schools. The upshot is an absurd game of chicken, with the federal government prioritizing Don't Ask Don't Tell over both national security --- dismissal of, say, gay linguists makes us objectively less safe --- and important scientific research.
That's what the Democratic candidates just signed onto.
 |
Daniel Koffler is a Clarendon Scholar and graduate student in philosophy at the University of Oxford. |
A New Way of Looking at Tzedakah
How far would you go--and how much would you give up--to get closer...
How, why, and where to hug trees (and otherwise save the planet)...
Eli Valley sends up anti-Obama hysteria
The struggle against injustice begins on your plate
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
naftali
Perhaps I stumbled into the wrong website, because I'm Jewish, and thought 'ah Jews'.
I'd just like to know how Daniel reached his conclusions. I know that ROTC hasn't been popular at universities since the 1960s. And there was never a point in the next decades in which it was popular, or even welcome. Schools started to ban ROTC, which seems, from one perspective, a bit odd since the right of free speech is something the military spends time and money defending. So why isn't this framed as a free speech issue, an academic freedom issue? There's no reason it can't be seen that way.
Or perhaps it could be seen as a fairness issue, which doesn't really carry any constitutional weight. But still, the military would certainly like to recruit at Yale for the same reason kids get into Yale in the first place--they're pretty bright, mature, and will make good leaders.
And so yes, the government twisted an arm which (I'm not sure what philosophy classes Mr. Koffler took) is a much better analogy than blackmail, since in blackmail, Yale would have to pay the government something, or the government would have had to decide to freeze all of Yale's assets unless so and so occurs. That's not what happened. Yale simply had to make a choice, whether it needed government money or not. If it takes government money, then perhaps it's reasonable to assume the government should have access to the campus. Also a plausible explanation for the Solomon Amendment.
Then, taking it down from an institutional fight to the individual level, if ROTC is on campus, Yale students are perfectly free to say, if approached, 'sorry, not interested'.
Instead, Yale decided to ban ROTC altogether. Now, it seems to me that the wronged party is ROTC, not Yale, and yet Mr. Koffler sees it quite differently, that the wronged party is not just Yale, but gays who attend Yale. Well that conclusion is quite a long jump, and I believe it would test positive for steroids.
Just my opinion.
Daniel Koffler
I'm not sure which version of the Solomon amendment Naftali read, but the one that's actually in the US Code does in fact threaten to shut down an entire research university if its law school won't actively provide resources to military recruiters. That is blackmail.
Likewise with ROTC, the objection is not to its mere presence, but to coercing the university into assisting it. There is active OCS recruitment at Yale which does not involve university participation, and several of my friends got into the marines that way.
In any event, substitute "Jews" or "African-Americans" for "gays" in any of the foregoing and tell me if there'd even be a question as to whether the academy's civil disobedience is justified.
zbird
Koffler, from you post it's not clear if the Solomon amendment were actually changed by Congress during the Bush administration to apply more broadly, or if Bush unilaterally decided to broaden its enforcement beyond the intent of the statute itself.
Because if the Dem candidates were asked whether they would enforce an existing statute, I can't blame them for responding yes. I think don't ask, don't tell is ridiculous and should be overturned ASAP. That being said, over the past 7 years we've had enough "signing statements" and other executive decisions to ignore the rule of law. If a Dem is elected, I hope he/she tries to change unjust laws--not ignore them in an unconstitutional manner.
--Z