Law Schools' Faces Get in the Way of Military's Fist

A federal judge ruled today that law schools have a First Amendment right to enforce their anti-discrimination policies against recruiters from the military. In other words, the policies say, if you discriminate against gays (as the military does), you can't recruit on their campus.

Of course, there was a dissent:

"What disturbs me personally and as a judge," Judge Aldisert wrote, "is that the law schools seem to approach this question as an academic exercise, a question on a constitutional law examination or a moot court topic, with no thought of the effect of their action on the supply of military lawyers and military judges."

What disturbs me personally and as a citizen is that the military seems to approach this question as if there were some legitimate reason to discriminate, as if there were some reason why the British and Israeli militaries could include gays but ours couldn't, with no thought of the effect of their action on the supply of military lawyers and military judges.

Howard J. Bashman, who helped write a supporting brief on behalf of students who favored the law, said the decision would hurt the military and the public. "A ruling of this sort will cause the military to end up with a lower quality of lawyer," Mr. Bashman said.

The Sneaky Rabbit wonders if Mr. Bashman has noticed that policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell will cause the military to end up with a lower quality of lawyer.

Why is everybody blaming the law schools for having an antidiscrimination policy, instead of blaming the military for making itself ineligible to recruit on any self-respecting campus?


P.S.: I don't usually comment on other blogs, because that's just too meta. But I'm disturbed by people who, like the Volokh Conspiracy's David Bernstein, describe this decision as "allowing private universities to discriminate against military recruiters."

David actually supports the decision, because he likes the idea of defying antidiscrimination laws. But this is really offensive spin. THE LAW SCHOOLS ARE NEUTRALLY APPLYING THE SAME POLICY TO THE MILITARY THAT THEY APPLY TO EVERYBODY ELSE.

Here's how it works: The law school asks all recruiting employers to sign a piece of paper saying, "We won't discriminate against people on the basis of race, religion, blah blah, or sexual orientation." The military says, "We can't sign that, because we discriminate against gays." The law school says, "Oh, we're sorry. If you don't sign, you can't come onto campus."

This is the opposite of discrimination.

And if you want to argue that it's unfair to include DADT within anti-discrimination policies, because DADT doesn't discriminate against gays, ask yourself whether it'd be okay for the military to allow Jews to serve on condition that they didn't let anyone know they're Jewish.