British Expatriate Network

This ruling today by the supreme court . those students who want to hear about the opportunities the military has to offer won this battle .

I dont think the opposition to military recruiting on campass is just the * dont ask dont tell law (clinton 1992 ) but more of aadversion to the military itself .


http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060307/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_campus_recruiters

No John, dodn't ask do dell is nothing more than state sanctioned bigotry and institutionalized prejudice. It has no place anywhere, let alone in an educational institute.

This case did nothing to address the merits of the policy, it merely confirmed that the State is allowed to place conditions on money it grants to educational institutes. What the case also confirmed, contrary to the position of certain officials in the DOD - is that the colleges and individuals can protest against the policy right outside any recruiting meeting, or even by sending out emails, flyers or putting up posters immediately adjacent to the military information.

Truth is that this victory could be pyrrhic for the Government.

When you look at the ruling that colleges and indivduals can protest in legal ways against recruitment it comes of as a check mate type of dicision really .

And i bet the colleges will take full advantage of it .

Heard a little on our local PBS station this morning, I think you meant Feds not State.
California has a knee jerk reaction to the military recruiting on campus. What they're doing recruiting in law schools and seminarys I'm not sure. I guess soldiers need priests and lawyers too :neutral:

They do indeed. We had an interview with a Mormon guy in our paper a short while back who was attending a military academy after his studies were finished, with the intention of being a religious leader for airmen I think.

I don't see the problem. No one makes students attend the brainwashing, sorry recruiting offices and even Bill O'Reilly said last night that those against had every right to protest legally, although he was almost foaming at the mouth with the thought that the left had been decimated by the Supreme Court's decision.

The issue for the colleges is that they have strict anti-discriminatory policies and they require all other 'employers' to sign a form saying they will abide by these.
The Feds have a discriminatory policy but wanted special treatment because they provide funding (not just to law schools- but the whole university).

The Supremes took the view of he who pays the piper calls the tune...

A related issue came up at my workplace this year.

A Forestry grad student released a study that was published by a journal called "Science" - quite an honour indeed. However, some facutly at my workplace tried to get the report squelched but failed.

The reason why was because the grad student had released findings that were at odds with the faculty, who were funded and working for the Bush Administration. Basically their previous findings suggested that it was good for the forests to log them if a fire had ocurred there, whereas the grad student now finds that it is quite bad and disturbs naturally growing saplings and the areas should be left alone.

The battle continues but the grad student is bravely refusing to stand down, despite the immense pressure he must be under right now. Oh and the Bureau of Land Management had the gall to cut his funding, on some technicality that wasn't even his fault and down to "Science" publishing something deemed "political". Once a few politicians got involved and asked BLM what they were up to, they turned the funding back on and said their investigations were "satisfied".

Right......

So much for a balanced Supreme Court.
For anyone interested the Canadian Supreme court is made up of 9 judges 4 of whom are women ( including the Chief Justice) They have to retire at age 75.

http//www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/judges/curjudges_e.asp

Kieth i could see you point you and others make about a *balanced * supreme court if the vote had been split but it was 8-0 judge Alito not being present . you can pretty much bet he would have voted yeah .

You can bet your life they are al still going to vote in the affurmative on anything to do with federal govt power and privalege .


When you see a vote 5-4 on something like abortion thats when we will see that unfortunatly the balance of the supreme court has been changed. the swing will be to the religious right .

I imagine that there are recruiters for other companies and org's that have practices that are not considered acceptable, but are tolerated. I have no problem with the Court's decision, in fact, as Rob said, they gained something valuable, the unfettered right to protest and picket, do whatever is legal. The government people were threatening to cut off the money if there were protests before, but it is specifically approved in the opinion.