Balkinization  

Thursday, March 09, 2006

A FAIR Thought

Mark Graber

My favorite new book, Jon Gould's SPEAK NO EVIL: THE TRIUMPH OF HATE SPEECH REGULATION, documents how, on most campuses, speech codes restricting racist (etc.) expression were more vigorously championed by administrators seeking to pacify various constituencies and keep up with the Jones, than critical race theorists and minority activists who had more important fish to fry. Reading that book in light of the recent FAIR litigation, I wonder whether something similar may have taken place with respect to military recruitment on campus. My sense of the universe is that while most liberal law professors, like myself, believed that campuses could deny military recruitment consistent with the statute (the military had to obey the same rules as other employers, which meant no discrimination against gays and lesbians) that we were very queasy, to say the least about the spending clause argument (since the government's pocketbook has been used for more liberal good than bad, at least in my judgment). So a question to which I do not know the answer, but would welcome reader input. Was the constitutional attack (as opposed to the statutory attack) on the right of the military to recruit on campus largely driven by professors who believed the spending clause argument or by academic administrators looking to make a largely symbolic protest?

Comments:

An entirely "symboilic protest" and that's putting it kindly. "Lazy, tokenistic, perfuntory, ineffectual" are more suitable adjectives. The Court would have treated them more kindly, in my opinion, if they had staged a sit-in at the Pentagon and been dragged away in handcuffs. But, what on earth, is the point in denying their students the oppportunity to talk to military recruiters just because they'll tell them: "We accept gay people in the military. For all you know I may be gay but I am not allowed to tell you. Neither am I allowed to ask you if you are gay. It's a policy passed as a compromise by Congress in 1992." Freedom of expression is a two-way street -- a conversation, not a harangue. What right did the law schools have to deny their entire student body information about their careers?

Just for the record, I consider DADT to be irrational. I think it is a disgrace to deny any able-bodied citizen the right to bear arms in defense of his country. But I have a lot more respect for the soldiers and lawyers who are challenging it head-on in Cook vs. Rumsfeld. I am also hopeful that it will be deemed a historical accident within ten years or so.
 

Apotik jual vimax asli Obat Pembesar Penis herbal Terbaik
Saat ini semakin banyak pria yang semakin tidak percaya diri dengan ukuran dari penisnya, dan oleh karena itu banyak yang merasa memerlukan bantuan untuk menambah ukuran dari penisnya sehingga mereka bisa memuaskan pasangan mereka. inilah sebabnya saat ini semakin banyak juga produsen Vimax.
Ini Dia Cara Memperbesar Alat Vital Secara Alami
Mengatasi Ejakulasi Dan Susah Ereksi Dengan Vimax Anda Tidak Perlu Kerja Extra Untuk Mengatasi Semua Problem Kejantanan Anda | ” JANGAN SALAH DALAM MEMILIH,, PRODUK PALSU BISA BERAKIBAT FATAL UNTUK KESEHATAN “ Ciri Ciri Vimax Asli
Vimax Asli telah membantu banyak orang untuk meningkatkan kinerja seksual dan memperbesar penis mereka. Dengan lebih dari 85% pelanggan Pembesar Penis Alami Yang telah disurvei melaporkan bahwa kenikmatan yang lebih besar selama berhubungan seksual. Bukanlah hal mengherankan bahwa pelanggan Obat Pembesar Alat Vital Vimax Asli Canada Terus berdatangan kembali. Ciri Vimax Asli
 

ok
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home