E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
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? Posted
12:10 PM
by Mark Graber [link]
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 asliObat 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 VitalVimax Asli Canada Terus berdatangan kembali. Ciri Vimax Asli