The US government will today argue that universities must accept military recruiters on campus if they accept federal money in a court case that could have far-reaching implications for college policy.
The Bush administration wants the supreme court to decide whether colleges should accept military recruiters even if they do not want them on campus because of the Pentagon's policy banning openly gay people from the military.
The implications of the ruling, expected to take several months, would likely extend beyond military recruitment and other strings could be attached to federal cash handouts.
In his submissions to the court, solicitor general Paul Clement said "the United States is doing no more than any other donor to, or contractor with, a university might reasonably do" by demanding access for its recruiters. Recruitment has been especially critical since the September 11 attacks, he said.
US colleges receive about $35bn a year from federal funds, and many college leaders say they could not do without that money.
But the issue goes to the heart of college policies, particularly those of law schools, regarding gay and lesbian students, who are barred from the military unless they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Many law schools forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.
Law schools have "a Hobson's choice: Either the university must forsake millions of dollars of federal funds largely unrelated to the law school, or the law school must abandon its commitment to fight discrimination," the Association of American Law Schools wrote in its court submission.
The federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment after its first congressional sponsor, mandates that universities, including their law and medical schools and other branches, give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit money from federal agencies like the education, labour and transportation departments.
Dozens of groups have filed briefs on both sides of the case, the first gay-rights related appeal since a contentious 2003 supreme court ruling that struck down laws criminalising gay sex.
The latest case stems from a lawsuit against the Pentagon by a group of law schools and professors claiming their free-speech rights are being violated on grounds they are forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.
Free-speech cases are often divisive at the court. If Samuel Alito, the president's nominee to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, is confirmed by the senate before the case is decided he could be called on to break any tie vote.
A panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd US circuit court of appeals found it was reasonably likely that the law violated free speech rights. Mr Alito serves on that appeals court but was not involved in the case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1660017,00.html
I like the way your thinking
