Feb

23

Law School Currently Still Opposed On-Campus Military Recruitment

Written by

The following e-mail was just sent to the Law School student body by the faculty last week. The letter states that “the military’s on-campus recruitment directly violates the Law School’s longstanding policy forbidding employers from recruiting on campus if they discriminate based on, inter alia, sexual orientation.” The e-mail does not explicitly refer to the ROTC, it instead takes the stance that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has yet to be given “presidential certification,” and thus the military’s policy of discrimination still opposes against the Law School’s discrimination policy. This statement was issued a long time ago, and has been on the Law School’s website, but was resent to the student body this morning apparently to reiterate that the faculty’s stance has not yet changed. A commenter notes that this happens every semester.

Full e-mail after the jump!

From:        Suzanne Goldberg/CLS
To:       [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Date:        02/17/2011 09:23 AM

The US armed forces have returned to our campus law student recruitment.  The military’s on-campus recruitment directly violates the Law School’s longstanding policy forbidding employers from recruiting on campus if they discriminate based on, inter alia, sexual orientation.  In response, the faculty members listed below have issued the following letter:

We, the undersigned members of the faculty of Columbia Law School, remain strongly opposed to the federal law known as the Solomon Amendment.  Through punitive financial coercion, this law requires the Law School to allow representatives of the United States armed services to engage in discriminatory recruitment on our campus through the Law School’s Career Services office.  This recruitment directly violates the Law School’s longstanding non-discrimination policy, which forbids employers from recruiting on our campus if they discriminate based on, inter alia, sexual orientation.  Under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which bars openly lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals from military service, military employers discriminate explicitly based on sexual orientation.

In March 2006, in Fair v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment against a challenge based on the First Amendment rights to speech and association.   The Court held that law schools could be required to permit military recruiters access to campus, notwithstanding the schools’ non-discrimination policies. However, Chief Justice Roberts, speaking for a unanimous Court, also made clear that “[s]tudents and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military’s message.”

Gratified by Congress’s recent action recognizing that eligibility for military service should not depend on sexual orientation, we look forward to implementation of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’s repeal following presidential certification.  Accordingly, we reaffirm our commitment to an educational environment at the Law School that is free from discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, and handicap or disability.

The undersigned faculty members recognize with regret the harms to which our lesbian, gay and bisexual students may be subject as a result of the military recruiters’ presence on campus in violation of our non-discrimination policy.

The undersigned faculty members further regret the harm to the United States and to the rule of law occasioned by a federal law that excludes highly qualified lawyers from serving in the United States armed forces.

MARK BARENBERG
VIVIAN BERGER
GEORGE A. BERMANN
JAGDISH BHAGWATI
BARBARA ARONSTEIN BLACK
VINCENT BLASI
CHRISTINA BURNETT
ALEXANDRA CARTER
JOHN COFFEE
KIMBERLÉ CRENSHAW
LORI DAMROSCH
BRETT DIGNAM
MICHAEL DOYLE
ARIELA DUBLER
HAROLD EDGAR
RANDALL EDWARDS
ELIZABETH F. EMENS
JEFFREY FAGAN
ROBERT A. FERGUSON
MERRITT B. FOX
KATHERINE FRANKE
RICHARD N. GARDNER
ALEJANDRO M. GARRO
PHILIP GENTY
MICHAEL GERRARD
JANE GINSBURG
ABBE GLUCK
SUZANNE GOLDBERG
HARVEY GOLDSCHMID
MICHAEL GRAETZ
KENT GREENAWALT
JACK GREENBERG
JAMAL GREENE
MICHAEL HELLER
JIM HOOVER
BERT HUANG
CONRAD A. JOHNSON
OLATI JOHNSON
AVERY W. KATZ
RISA KAUFMAN
SUSAN KRAHAM
JODY KRAUS (visiting)
BENJAMIN LIEBMAN
CAROL B. LIEBMAN
JAMES LIEBMAN
LANCE LIEBMAN
EDWARD LLOYD
GILLIAN METZGER
CURTIS MILHAUPT
EBEN MOGLEN
TREVOR MORRISON
HORATIA MUIR WATT (visiting)
ARTHUR MURPHY
NATHANIEL PERSILY
KATHARINA PISTOR
ANDRZEJ RAPACZYNSKI
ALEX RASKOLNIKOV
JOSEPH RAZ
DANIEL RICHMAN
DANIEL RODRIGUEZ (visiting)
PETER ROSENBLUM
CHARLES SABEL
CAROL SANGER
BARBARA A. SCHATZ
ELIZABETH SCOTT
ROBERT E. SCOTT
THEODORE SHAW
WILLIAM SIMON
MICHAEL I. SOVERN
JANE SPINAK
PETER L. STRAUSS
SUSAN STURM
KENDALL THOMAS
MATTHEW WAXMAN
PATRICIA WILLIAMS
TIM WU
MARY ZULACK

Tags: ,

14 Comments

  1. John  

    This doesn't seem to be directly concerning ROTC, but rather a law which forces the Law School to allow the military to access career services. Right? So related perhaps, but not the same.

  2. John  

    Yea, after re-reading it.. allowing an ROTC program on campus is slightly different from allowing recruiters. And one is an option, while the other is being forced upon the law school.

  3. alum

    yeah the solomon amendment stuff, though related, is not the same as rotc. it is significant, but i do wonder about the timing.

  4. Well

    On-campus recruitment by the military would imply the ROTC, no?

  5. Woah  

    Bwog, this is old news.

    It's been on the law school website for months. It was written in pre-but-imminent-DADT-repeal days.
    http://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/military-recruiting

  6. John  

    No, it wouldn't. "In March 2006, in Fair v. Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court
    upheld the Solomon Amendment against a challenge based on the First
    Amendment rights to speech and association. The Court held that law
    schools could be required to permit military recruiters access to
    campus, notwithstanding the schools’ non-discrimination policies.
    However, Chief Justice Roberts, speaking for a unanimous Court, also
    made clear that “[s]tudents and faculty are free to associate to voice
    their disapproval of the military’s message.”"

    They've been required for awhile. The ROTC program allows students to be undergoing officer training while attending a college of their choice on the government's dime. Then they have to serve a certain number of years in the military.

  7. Anonymous  

    this email is sent to the student body every semester...

  8. Anonymous  

    It was resent to the Law School because spring on-campus recruiting just began, not because of the ROTC debate. It is sent every time the JAG recruiters come to the Law School.

  9. No mention of gender identity

    The law school anti-DADT statement doesn't mention gender identity.

    The law school's omission reminds me of this interesting question about DADT repeal:

    Why did LGBT military activists NOT bundle military transgender policy in their advocacy for DADT repeal?

    From a legal advocacy standpoint, I wonder if military transgender policy is justifiable in ways that DADT was not.

  10. inter alia?  

    inter alia.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.