Powerhouse
12-07-2005, 05:23 PM
I thought this exchange would be funny enough to those that follow the courts:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/06/scotus.recruiters/index.html
Nearly every law school and many universities have policies preventing employers who discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation from participating in career placement on campus.
The U.S. military bans open homosexual service members, following the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. That policy prevents officials from inquiring into whether a service member is gay or lesbian but allows the military to discharge homosexuals if any evidence emerges of their sexual orientation.
The military told schools it could not comply with the sexual orientation provision. Many schools responded by banning military recruiters, and Congress responded in 1994 by blocking federal funds from schools that did so.
The "Solomon Amendment," as the fund-blocking provision has become known, eventually prompted compromise among universities and the military. But the Bush administration took a hard-line stance shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, demanding access equal to that given other job recruiters.
A group of law schools sued, arguing a constitutional right "to be free from compelled endorsement of messages repugnant to them."
...
The attorney for the law school faced tough questioning from the bench. Joshua Rosenkranz argued the military wants a privilege that does not extend to other employers, allowing it to bypass the school's anti-discrimination policy.
"The government takes the position that the law school is free to convey its (anti-discrimination) message to anyone who cares," O'Connor said. "What's wrong with that?"
Rosenkranz answered, "The ability to protest a forced message is never a cure for compelled speech."
"Nobody thinks the law school is speaking through the employers who come onto campus for recruitment," Roberts followed up. "Everybody knows those are the employers who are speaking."
Rosenkranz: "The law schools' message is, they believe it is immoral to abet discrimination."
O'Connor: "But they can say that to all" who want to hear that message.
Rosenkranz: "But when they say that, students don't believe the message."
Roberts: "The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money. What you're saying is, it's a message we believe in strongly, but not to the tune of a hundred million dollars."
Roberts repeated that theme several times, wondering whether this case was less about free speech and more about money. He later asked, "If you had a policy that denied employers that use tanks, would that pass muster?"
Rosenkranz: "For a religious institution, absolutely," saying some church-based schools may seek such a policy.
Roberts: "What about Yale Law School?" which was among the institutions opposing the military.
Rosenkranz: "Yes, it would apply."
Scalia: "Where did the issue of religion come from; I thought we were talking about freedom of speech?"
:1chirol_r :1chirol_r :1chirol_r
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/06/scotus.recruiters/index.html
Nearly every law school and many universities have policies preventing employers who discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation from participating in career placement on campus.
The U.S. military bans open homosexual service members, following the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. That policy prevents officials from inquiring into whether a service member is gay or lesbian but allows the military to discharge homosexuals if any evidence emerges of their sexual orientation.
The military told schools it could not comply with the sexual orientation provision. Many schools responded by banning military recruiters, and Congress responded in 1994 by blocking federal funds from schools that did so.
The "Solomon Amendment," as the fund-blocking provision has become known, eventually prompted compromise among universities and the military. But the Bush administration took a hard-line stance shortly after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, demanding access equal to that given other job recruiters.
A group of law schools sued, arguing a constitutional right "to be free from compelled endorsement of messages repugnant to them."
...
The attorney for the law school faced tough questioning from the bench. Joshua Rosenkranz argued the military wants a privilege that does not extend to other employers, allowing it to bypass the school's anti-discrimination policy.
"The government takes the position that the law school is free to convey its (anti-discrimination) message to anyone who cares," O'Connor said. "What's wrong with that?"
Rosenkranz answered, "The ability to protest a forced message is never a cure for compelled speech."
"Nobody thinks the law school is speaking through the employers who come onto campus for recruitment," Roberts followed up. "Everybody knows those are the employers who are speaking."
Rosenkranz: "The law schools' message is, they believe it is immoral to abet discrimination."
O'Connor: "But they can say that to all" who want to hear that message.
Rosenkranz: "But when they say that, students don't believe the message."
Roberts: "The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money. What you're saying is, it's a message we believe in strongly, but not to the tune of a hundred million dollars."
Roberts repeated that theme several times, wondering whether this case was less about free speech and more about money. He later asked, "If you had a policy that denied employers that use tanks, would that pass muster?"
Rosenkranz: "For a religious institution, absolutely," saying some church-based schools may seek such a policy.
Roberts: "What about Yale Law School?" which was among the institutions opposing the military.
Rosenkranz: "Yes, it would apply."
Scalia: "Where did the issue of religion come from; I thought we were talking about freedom of speech?"
:1chirol_r :1chirol_r :1chirol_r