Can colleges afford military recruiting ban?

Should Military recruiters be allowed on campus?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 65.0%
  • No

    Votes: 3 15.0%
  • Not that bothered!

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • Total voters


Active member
Taken from

Should military recruiters be allowed on college and law school campuses to seek new volunteers for the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard?
And should colleges and law schools that refuse to host military recruiters, on the grounds that the Pentagon discriminates against gays, lose federal funds?
These are two key questions the U.S. Supreme Court will have to answer in the coming months.
The answers the high court provides are being looked to with heightened anticipation and trepidation as the war in Iraq and its mounting costs in dollars and lives continues to be the focus of sharp and divisive political debate. Military recruiters have been struggling to meet personnel quotas and many college campuses increasingly have become hotbeds of anti-war sentiment.
Gay rights an issue
At the same time, the issue of gay rights continues to spark sharp disagreement, not only in legislative arenas, but also in academic, religious and corporate America.
Recently, the nine-member panel heard arguments in a suit that challenges the constitutionality of a federal law -- the 1994 Solomon Amendment, and subsequent related statutes -- that imposes an end to most federal aid to colleges and law schools that ban military recruiters from their campuses.
To some larger universities, that aid runs in the tens of millions of dollars. However, student loans are not affected.
The government argued restrictions set by colleges against Pentagon recruiters hamper its efforts to attract "the best and the brightest" and build an effective armed force, especially in time of war.
The challenge originally was brought by a consortium of 26 law schools that believe colleges have a right to shut out military recruiters because the Pentagon's treatment of gay servicemen and women, through its "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy, violates campus rules prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is the result of a 1993 compromise between the Clinton White House and the Pentagon. It allows homosexuals to join and stay in the armed forces as long as they don't reveal their sexual orientation. It replaced an outright ban on gays in the military, which the Pentagon previously had imposed in what it called an effort to "maintain good order" in the ranks.
Money or principle?
In recent arguments before the court, questions and comments by the justices seemed to suggest they might be leaning toward upholding the government's right to withhold federal funds if colleges do not give the same access to military recruiters they give to private corporations or other government agencies seeking to hire graduates.
"(The law) doesn't insist that you do anything. It says that if you want our money, you have to let our recruiters on campuses," Chief Justice John Roberts said.
But E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for the law schools, said accepting military recruiters on campus signaled that the schools, in effect, condoned the Pentagon's anti-gay policy.
"This is a refusal to disseminate the messages of the military recruiters," Rosenkranz said.
In that case, Roberts said, if the schools feel that strongly, they should be willing to turn down federal funds.
And so it went.
Colleges have long been fertile ground for recruitment of military personnel, especially officers. But colleges also have been fertile ground for protest against military policy.
Whatever the court decides, the military will still find ways to recruit college students. And college students still will find ways to oppose the military. But one side will be at a disadvantage

What is everyones opinions on this? Ive seen it mentioned a couple of times regarding the recruiters on campus, but no actual comments on whether they think it should or should not happen.
I didn't know how to answer your question.

As someone who's in the uniformed services currently and someone who was in Navy ROTC in college, I say "sure." But as someone who went to a good college and an Ivy-league school for graduate school, I respect the schools' desire to ban recruiters based on the military's stance on homosexuality. However, you gotta pay to play -- bar military recruitment, and the federal government should have the right to withhold federal funding. Just my $0.02.
If the question is if they can literally afford not to have recruiters on campus, then the answer is those previously mentioned ivy league schools sure can. I don't think they'll give up the federal cash easily though. I've seen it happen before and I've seen them change their stance once the grant bucks start drying up.
My personal opinion is that they ought to leave it up to their adult and presumably well educated students to decide if they want to talk to a military recruiter. Some of these professors and academic institution policy setters need to come down from their ivy covered towers for a taste of the real world once in a while. Maybe they'd reluctantly realize what a debt they owe to those military types that they are all too fond of automatically condemning.
Top, I find your comments ironic considering that most of American academia leans towards the left, and yet you quote a Democrat in your sig.
Conscription would be an answer. One which allowed no one to be exempt. Then at least even those who are critical of the military would at least have a clue.
Because of the skyrocketing college costs, academia CAN NOT afford to lose the federal dollars that would be lost by barring recruitment on campus.

Only a small portion of the rising costs can be passed on to the student classes - federal moneys allow colleges to compete for new students by tempering the additional cost factors that new and present students would otherwise be burdened with.

The balance between what CAN be offered and what CAN be afforded rests on the edge of a razor. That razor is the amount of funds available for any given school year.

Of course recruiters should be allowed on college campuses, especially if these colleges, as most do, have an ROTC program of any sort.

Once again, this comes down to my belief that most College students look down there noses at those who wear the uniform, I know my "friends" who are going to college all think I am throwing my life away by joining the Army, that they would sooner disown their children than allow them to join the Military. To which I tell them that it is people like me, people like you, who choose to serve something greater that allow them to say shit like that without fear of reprecussions. Not only that, but many college students, and their parents, seem to think that the nation still has a draft and the military is for high school dropouts and college rejects. Another reason why I don't believe there is really a difference between supporting a war and supporting our trooops. When people are upset about the war who catches the most hell? The soldiers coming back from war.
AJChenMPH said:
Top, I find your comments ironic considering that most of American academia leans towards the left, and yet you quote a Democrat in your sig.
Do you seriously consider John Kennedy a leftist? Please, that would be just silly. It may come as a surprise to you but I can and do admire people for what they do regardless of whether they are a Democrat or a Republican (I am neither). Besides, my sig. has nothing to do with my post. That's why we have those little separator lines. ;)
'Yes' to college campus, 'no' to high schools. My reason being is young people are much more impressionable. I'm not sure at 17-18 that the 'fantasy' young people just exiting teenage years have of army life coincides with the 'reality' of it. Also and no disrespect to recruiters intended, but certain ones have been known to make promises they couldnt keep. And its not like you can just quit the next day like a civilian job if you discover you dont like it.

I think its smarter let let kids grow up and then decide if a military career is right for them.
DTop said:
Do you seriously consider John Kennedy a leftist? Please, that would be just silly. It may come as a surprise to you but I can and do admire people for what they do regardless of whether they are a Democrat or a Republican (I am neither). Besides, my sig. has nothing to do with my post. That's why we have those little separator lines. ;)

Today, JFK would be classified as a Republican if judged by his policies.
About recruiters in High School.

I can't speak of all high school, but I know that at my school college recruiters came just as, and in the case of state schools, more often than military recruiters. The Army, Marines, Air Force and Civil Air Patrol(that one is kind of random.) sent recruiters one Wednesday a month, rotating, South Dakota State University, Dakota Wesleyan and Black Hills State University sent one recruiter a week, an assortment of other schools sent recruiters every other week while some, while the University of Nebraska (Omaha, Lincoln and Kearny) seemed to send recruiters twice a week.

And you want to talk about impressionable? How about going to a building everyday where the opinion was "Don't join the military, you'll be throwing your life away, son."

That was the common opinion in my school. Others are probably different. (Or at least I hope so.)