The Young America's Foundation has sued the Department of Defense for failing to enforce the Solomon Amendment -- the law that requires schools receiving federal funding to give access to military representatives for recruiting purposes, and to treat military recruiters in the same way they treat all other employment recruiters. The lawsuit arises from the University of California at Santa Cruz (UCSC). According to the plaintiff's complaint, UCSC for three years has allowed near riots by professors and students to drive military recruiters from its job fairs, while non-military recruiters have enjoyed an unimpeded opportunity to meet with students interested in employment.
The Defense Department has moved to dismiss YAF's complaint.
Cowards, idiots, or bigger irons in the fire?
10 comments:
But don't you think it makes sense for the military not to waste its time at the school, because obviously it doesn't want the recruiters. It seems like a useless complaint to me. Even if YAF won, military would show up and no one would pay any attention.
Any reason to think the three possibilities are mutually exclusive?
Allen: no, no reason at all to think they're mutually exclusive.
Anonymous: it's not wise to have laws you don't enforce--that breeds contempt for all laws. If "no one" paid attention to the military at such job fairs, the military could choose not to show up; that sounds like a "market driven" solution, as opposed to the mob rule that exists now.
UC Santa Cruz doesn't allow the military because the military doesn't follow UCSC policies of non-discrimination. As soon as the military allows openly allow homosexuals to join, I'm sure a lot of people will back off. Until then, I'm going to have to follow Kohlberg's moral development scale, something that I always think of whenever you bring up the fact that we should not break the law, no matter what. According to him, following laws is Stage 4, out of 6. Stage 5, by contrast, stresses a good society over following laws:
"At stage 4, people want to keep society functioning. However, a smoothly functioning society is not necessarily a good one. A totalitarian society might be well-organized, but it is hardly the moral ideal. At stage 5, people begin to ask, "What makes for a good society?" They begin to think about society in a very theoretical way, stepping back from their own society and considering the rights and values that a society ought to uphold. They then evaluate existing societies in terms of these prior considerations. They are said to take a "prior-to-society" perspective (Colby and Kohlberg, 1983, p. 22).
Stage 5 respondents basically believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all They recognize that different social groups within a society will have different values, but they believe that all rational people would agree on two points. First they would all want certain basic rights, such as liberty and life, to be protected Second, they would want some democratic procedures for changing unfair law and for improving society.
In response to the Heinz dilemma, stage 5 respondents make it clear that they do not generally favor breaking laws; laws are social contracts that we agree to uphold until we can change them by democratic means."
Cameron, you're way too smart to try such a stupid excuse on me.
"The military" didn't make the rule about not allowing homosexuals. "The Congress" did. The military is following the law created by the (civilian) legislature and signed by a (civilian) president.
Any guesses which political party ran both houses of Congress when that law was passed? :-)
"Don't ask, don't tell" is an Executive Order. Any guess which political party the President who created that order belonged to?
Put simply, your statement doesn't hold up to facts. And I don't believe for one moment that military recruiters would be welcomed with open arms at UCSC if the ban were overturned. Rather, I believe that you and your fellow students would find some other excuse to justify your anti-military stance.
I'm just sayin' :-)
In other words, protest to your Congress. BTW, how is that Democrat-controlled Congress doing with overturning the ban. Front burner issue?
Don't hold your breath.
Not supporting Republicans does not mean that I support the Democrats! They're doing a terrible job at getting anything done. I don't support Hilary or Barack Obama. Dennis Kucinich knows his stuff but I don't think he has enough recognition. I'd like to just get out of here as soon as possible.
And no, that doesn't mean I hate America and I want the troops to die! I am not anti-soldier, and I don't know anyone who is. I know people joining the armed forces (did you ever have Chad? He just joined the Navy). It is a little hurtful when people say that people who don't support the war hate America and the troops. It's absolutely not true and I don't know anyone who shares the sentiment (although I know you could probably find someone. Nobody I know is like that, I can tell you that, and I go to you-know-where).
I just follow the words of Einstein: "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
Oh, and the bit of the amendment that stops federal funding for non-complying schools was passed in 2001, when Republicans were in control of every branch.
Cameron, the Solomon Amendment was passed by a Republican-led Congress. Forbidding gays in the military was not.
So the one candidate that fills you with warm feelings you admit has no chance of election.
Cameron, politics is called "the art of the possible" because it doesn't much matter how noble your intentions or right your cause if you can't get it done, get elected, or at least have some reasonable chance of getting it done, it's just a hobby and you don't get taken seriously by serious people. You have to be satisfied with your moral presumptions and outrage because that's all you'll ever have.
As for you being upset by some of the suggestions that you hate America or want the troops to die, you're known by the company you keep and that company does hate America and wants the soldiers to die. That hatred's a natural outgrowth of being ignored, or having your candidate ignore, by "the masses".
Since there's no chance that you could be wrong in your choice of candidate the only explanation for your candidates failure are shortcomings in the electorate. They're just too stupid to see what you see and this widespread stupidity leads neatly into sneering condescension which gets you a free ride on the "Hate America" roller-coaster.
I don't want to get started on the hatred of the left for the military other then to remind you of Senator Kerry's comment about what happens if you don't study.
Post a Comment