 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
Military Recruiting Under Siege
Date: 05-06-05 13:39
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether colleges can ban military recruiters from their campuses. The justices will review a lower-court ruling that found that law schools have a First Amendment right to exclude recruiters whose hiring practices discriminate against gay men and lesbians. Does allowing recruiters on campuses curtail those institutions' freedom of speech and expression by compelling them to disseminate a message they disagree with? Does banning military recruiters hamper the Pentagon's ability to hire talented lawyers? Read more:
• High Court to Hear Case on Military Recruiting
• GI Blues
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 07:27
Sure, any private college or university should have the right to ban military recruiters. They do not have the right, however, to demand that the government subsidize them if they do so. It's a no-brainer question.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 09:50
As a vet, but a decided liberal, I think military recruiting should take place on campus. The military services provide a system of careers for students who often come from more economically depressed parts of the United States. In this era of fewer good jobs, military service provides a fine alternative to unemployment.
I believe that the military, by the same token, should stop all discriminatory policies.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 11:02
If the military is banned from recruiting, then why not private firms as well? Just because the military or other law firm is visible on campus does not meet automatic induction or acceptance of an offer of employment. It should be equal access.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 11:39
Not allowing recruiters on campus does not preclude those who would join the military from doing so. Certainly we could draw the line a number of places. I am completely against the military recruiting anyone on campus, no matter how they do it.
Institutions should not be forced to allow outside organizations the use of their space for any reason. This is especially true when outside organization is systematically discriminating against gays and lesbians. What if the military discriminated against southpaws (left handers)? Would the supporters of the military on campus be OK with that as well? Seeing as handedness has little to do with occupational qualifications (as does being gay or lesbian have little to do with occupational qualifications), this poses a problem.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 12:52
If a law school is to stand by its principles then by all means let them stand. But if a law school is unwilling to make sacrifices (withheld government funding) because of their principles then they are not principles at all, but rather ill advised intentions.
I am for military recruiters on every campus. If one wants "don't ask, don't tell" to change it must be done from the within the military, by changing its culture. That can only be accomplished by enlisting and commissing those that have a more progressive view of social rights and are willing to serve their country while at the same time seeking to change the military's policy on homosexuals serving openly. Those progressives attend many of those schools that are seeking to hinder the recrutiment process thus hurting their own cause.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 15:23
According to Barrett, TN
"But if a law school is unwilling to make sacrifices (withheld government funding) because of their principles then they are not principles at all, but rather ill advised intentions."
So, does this mean that my "ill advised intentions" become principles as soon as I agree to submit to coersion, or perhaps some form of blackmail?
Re: Dale
Date: 05-09-05 15:35
Dale wrote:
> Not allowing recruiters on campus does not preclude those who
> would join the military from doing so. Certainly we could draw
> the line a number of places. I am completely against the
> military recruiting anyone on campus, no matter how they do it.
>
Why? Having recruiters on campus does not preclude those who don't want to join the military from just walking on by.
>
> Institutions should not be forced to allow outside
> organizations the use of their space for any reason.
But those organizations should still be forced to give these institutions money? How come?
>This is
> especially true when outside organization is systematically
> discriminating against gays and lesbians. What if the military
> discriminated against southpaws (left handers)? Would the
> supporters of the military on campus be OK with that as well?
> Seeing as handedness has little to do with occupational
> qualifications (as does being gay or lesbian have little to do
> with occupational qualifications), this poses a problem.
Obviously you have never been in the military. (I have and for 3 years) Your argument is silly. The military isn't discriminating against people who are left handed. Actually, they aren't discriminating against anyone. So long as gays don't tell anyone they're homosexuals, the military isn't going to ask.
(As a side note, the Army DOES ask if you are left handed.)
The fact of the matter is Dale you are blinded by leftist propaganda. What's fair is fair. If you don't want recruiters on campus that fine.
Then don't ask for their money either.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 16:13
Universities would be better offer to change their so-called principles of nondiscrimination rather than selectively ignore them. On their websights, job announcements or wherever else they advertise that sexual orientation is a status for which they prohibit discrimination, change those statements to reflect reality. Otherwise their whole equal opportunity policy becomes undeniably the sham it probably is anyway. If they have the guts to abet discrimination, let them have the guts to admit it.
This idea that it is wrong to try to change federal policy by any means other than writing to Congressmen is ridiculous and implies that much of what the Supreme Court does is superfluous. The argument smells of disingenuity.
The idea that universities should welcome discriminating employers to change the culture of the employer is also disingenuous unless one thinks that universities should not require any employer to comply with the campus nondiscrimination policy.
It is offensive to suggest that the "liberal" schools where most of the protest occurs are the only place to recruit thoughtful competent officers. The very framers of discriminatory policies are often from those very schools. Bush is from Yale. Wolfowitz is from Cornell. Where is the list of enlisted officers from Ivy League univervsities who are speaking publicly against "don't ask don't tell." The only officer who has had sufficient principle and courage to do that is at WestPoint, where the Solomon Amendment is hardly an issue.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 16:43
jt,
To answer your question. Your 'ill advised intentions' become principles when you choose to stand by them and accept the consequences. If not, then they aren't worth your time.
One of my principles is service to my country no matter what my intellectual beliefs, political leanings, and current commander in chief. That's why I chose to serve in the Reserves during college. And when I was asked to serve in Iraq I went not becuase I agreed with the mission but becuase of my principles. I was willing to sacrifice putting my education on hold, leaving friends and family, and going into harms way in order to fullfill that principle. I could've rejected all that by avoiding my commitment, going AWOL and touring the country as an outspoken critic. In doing so my principles would have meant nothing and selfish arrogance would have prevaled.
Like I said if you want 'don't ask, don't tell' changed then do it from the inside out, not from litigation.
Re: Leftist
Date: 05-09-05 16:52
I'd call myself a leftist, and I think universal military service is a good idea. The ability to serve all is good training for citizenship. People taking principled positions on Vietnam--pro or con-- was strengthened by the idea that the men, at least, were expected to do military service. The republic is more endangered by an all volunteer praetorian military.
Dale
Date: 05-09-05 17:19
Dear Dale,
Hope you don't plan to work for Hillary in 2008. The don't ask/don't tell program is a Clinton administration policy.
Bravo, Cheryl for a good answer.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-09-05 17:26
I think it's more than a question of 'disagreeing' with the military. My state makes it a crime to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The military does just that. By allowing them on campus to recruit, we would be encouraging an organization that engages in illegal behavior.
To expand it to a ridiculous degree (but logically consistent) would we allow recruiters for drug cartels on campus? Even if they agreed to give the institution money?
Re: Dale
Date: 05-09-05 17:26
Earth to Dale . . .
Like Cheryl, I've been in the Army. There were plenty of effective soldiers there who also happened to be gay. Racially, the Army is the most integrated organization within our society. And as Cheryl points out, you don't have to join. Just walk on by. Banning recruiters from campus reduces other students' choices. Why do you believe you have the right to do that?
Re: Dale
Date: 05-09-05 17:56
Cheryl wrote,
"Your argument is silly. The military isn't discriminating against people who are left handed. Actually, they aren't discriminating against anyone. So long as gays don't tell anyone they're homosexuals, the military isn't going to ask."
That's not discriminating? Then Cheryl must mean that someone's "telling" leads to an immediate loss of job skills. This is either miraculous.
Or is it that :
The fact of the matter is (replace "Dale" with "Cheryl") you are blinded by (replace "leftist" with "Pentagon") propaganda.
So, are the recruiters donating to the colleges they visit?
I too spent three years in the military.
Re: Dale
Date: 05-09-05 18:06
Ad hominem attacks on my politics don't stand as real objections to the point here, Cheryl.
Universities have the right to refuse outside organizations that discriminate inappropriately, and that is a right they should exercise.
Your argument on discrimination is certainly not in line with the facts. Gays and lesbians are being discriminated against because they cannot engage in activities that heterosexual persons can. How many heterosexual persons are brought up on charges of sodomy?
On persons just walking away - I said there could be lines drawn. What about allowing literature but not persons? Those are much easier to walk away from. Even so, the point still stands that this outside organization does not hold principles that the university often does. Thus, any intrusion should not be allowed.
On point two: If you're referencing with this "money" thing the fact that universities get federal aid, I'll say this - the next time the federal or state government pays its fair share of university budgets, we can talk about allowing its agents in to recruit for organizations that discriminate.
RE; cheryl
Date: 05-09-05 21:51
Huh? "So long as gays don't tell anyone they're homosexuals, the military isn't going to ask."
Join the 21st century, military, and maybe we will allow you on campus.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 08:55
Congress and the President are the ones who can end the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy Most officers in the military already know the policy is counterproductive, but they can't be writing letters to their Congressmen about it.
Universities are correct to stand up for their principles of non-discrimination. It is too bad that Harvard, NYU, and Yale are the only universities to do so. I hope Congress does end "don't ask" so that those universities and all others can help the military recruit the best available men and women.
By helping the military to discriminate against gays and lesbians, a university is helping to assure that the best available are not recruited, and they are helping Congressmen feel okay about that.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 09:18
Barret, TN wrote
"One of my principles is service to my country no matter what my intellectual beliefs, political leanings, and current commander in chief. ... And when I was asked to serve in Iraq I went not becuase I agreed with the mission but becuase of my principles."
The only discernible principle here may be described as blind loyalty. Perhaps we should have remained colonies?
response to jt
Date: 05-10-05 10:09
jt,
I know you want to believe that my service constitutes blind loyalty. But it doesn't. Like I said I serve because I want to, not because I agree with the Pentagon or President. You don't need to resort to this jt becuase I gather your an intelligent person and you certainly don't need to insult my service to our country. You simply fan the flames of intolerance when you do that to me. Heh.
But back to the point at hand, I think gays should serve openly in the military but only in non combat realted specialties, i.e. admin positions. The Isrealies do something similar I believe.
Re: Leftist
Date: 05-10-05 10:19
So, gays are to be drafted? Why not women too?
Re: Leftist
Date: 05-10-05 11:06
yes, in a draft everyone should be considered, including women.
Re: Leftist
Date: 05-10-05 11:19
I hope Dale does work for Hillary next time. I'm going to. I saw gays in every sort of Army position in the 1960s. Yes, the military should end the half discrimination it practices. Yes, we should have military (or at least public) service for all young people.
Re: Dale
Date: 05-10-05 11:46
Cheryl, UofM prof wrote:
> The fact of the matter is Dale you are blinded by leftist
> propaganda. What's fair is fair. If you don't want recruiters on campus that fine.
>
> Then don't ask for their money either.
I have a suspicion that this is all less to do with gay rights than the desire of the Radical Left on campuses to oppose the American military at every turn on every issue because they believe our military is a tool of imperialist aggression, and nothing more. I suspect that for some opposed to recruiters on campus, the gay rights issue is merely a convenient tool with which to fight the military in court.
This really began in the 60's when Radical Leftist students chased the recruiters off campuses everywhere in opposition to the Vietnam War. Ever since then the general attitude on the university campus, now shared by professor and student alike, has largely been one of decided opposition to every American military venture abroad, not to mention any American presence abroad at all whether corporate or military, and thus opposition to recruitment on campuses. These people claim to be anti-war, but for the most part, they are only anti-war when it is America fighting a war. You hardly ever hear of these people standing up against other countries waging wars, at least not with the passion with which they oppose American military interventions. And when it comes to war against America, they usually display at minimum a tolerance of it through silence. In fact, as everyone surely knows in the wake of the Ward Chruchill incident, some radical professors and students publicly and proudly support the current radical Jihadist war against America.
So it does seem to come back to a general anti-miltary, and often anti-American attitude that prevails on so many campuses today. It's even spread off the college campus to high school college fairs where we now see so-called "counter recruiters" attempting to shut down the militaries recruitment efforts there. Why they bother I don't know, since it has been all over the news that the military keeps falling short of its recruitment goals anyhow.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 11:49
jt wrote:
> According to Barrett, TN
>
> "But if a law school is unwilling to make sacrifices
> (withheld government funding) because of their principles then
> they are not principles at all, but rather ill advised
> intentions."
>
> So, does this mean that my "ill advised intentions" become
> principles as soon as I agree to submit to coersion, or perhaps
> some form of blackmail?
What??? How are you black mailed by recruiters?
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 12:43
" Like I said I serve because I want to, not because I agree with the Pentagon or President."
But if you serve blindly, are you really serving the good of the country? Let's start with this hypothetical example. Say we get a new president who is absolutely nuts. One day he goes on TV and spins a globe. He closes his eyes and pokes his finger at the globe. His finger happens to hit country XYZ. So this president says, ok, our new plan of miltary defense is to attack XYZ, because my psychic powers have told me this is the right thing to do. What kind of "principles" would lead you to say, ok, let's go ahead and attack this country?! Obviously that would be an absurdity.
But back in the real world....often there ARE questions and ambiguities are why we are attacking a certain country, and whether it really does do US any good. A person who has true principles will stick to their principles, not to the whim of adminstrators and politicians. This is why I never could join the military--you are asked to give up deciding what is right and wrong, give up acting based on what is right or wrong, and simply be a tool of those making the decisions above you.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 12:50
The evil military with all of its discriminatory policies. Did you know, for example, that someone with no arms or legs is prevented from serving in combat? Terrible! The blind and deaf are not allowed to participate in combat. How can this be? In addition, the military is biased against those who wear their longer than others. Outrage! If we don't stop this terrible force, soon they'll make all members wear the same uniform. Gadzooks!
On a serious note--don't ask, don't tell. How would the military know that a person is homosexual? In the context of military service, why would it ever be necessary to proclaim one's sexuality?
The military is for one thing--killing the enemy. It's not another place to attempt social engineering--we can see how well that engineering has worked in society. Go to the mall and look around and see the consequences. Don't do that to the military, please.
Re: response to jt
Date: 05-10-05 13:38
To B, Tn
Your communications seem to conflate three different notions:
1. principle
2. character
3. desire.
In your last, you stated that "I serve because I want to, not because I agree with the Pentagon or President. " The principle here amounts to "I will do what I want to do" This is perhaps a principle, (psychological hedonism) but this principle of action should not be confused with principles in general. To say that one wants to serve is not the same as to say one ought to serve because one believes in the cause.
It seems also that you are confused about the difference between principles and character. Some have argued that Galileo showed lack of character in recanting his denial that the Earth was the center of the universe. But that is not to say that the principles of reasoning he used to arrive at his unpolular believes are "intentions" rather than principles.
Regarding the claim that I happened " insult my service to our country" I am not questioning your service, rather I question a "my country right or wrong" mentality.
By the way, I myself served for three years during the Vietnam conflict.
Melba
Date: 05-10-05 13:51
Melba wrote:
A person who has true principles will stick to their principles, not to the whim of adminstrators and politicians. This is why I never could join the military--you are asked to give up deciding what is right and wrong, give up acting based on what is right or wrong, and simply be a tool of those making the decisions above you.
Dear Melba,
That's a respectable position. I hope you are equally opposed to the growth of big government, since it is replete with politicians and administrators who believe that they know what is right and what is wrong and are prepared to force you to abide by their decisions (or, failing legislative support, seeking support for their point of view from judges).
The left is uncomfortable with social policies enforced by the military that 'discriminate' but often very comfortable with social policies enforced by other branches of the government which may also 'discriminate'. Hopefully you won't fall into such a contradictory position.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 14:53
I wish they would reinstate the draft. Now that being gay is not the huge stigma it used to be, many guys who wanted out wouldn't think twice about saying they were gay. This would end the "don't ask don't tell" policy in no time, as Selective Service offices find themselves not able to fill their quotas. Soon gays would be welcomed with open arms.
Re: Melba
Date: 05-10-05 15:18
To Observer II:
Yes, it is sometimes contradictory for government to espouse hands off of individuals and then contradict it by encouraging judges to intervene in individual decisions.
Re: Dale
Date: 05-10-05 15:21
Couldn't have said it better myself--thank you.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 15:23
I would be in favour of military recruiting on campus when they start setting up recruitment fairs as part of gay pride week. But they won't will they? Because gay pride is about love, not war.
Re: Garrett
Date: 05-10-05 15:46
Read carefully
I said nothing about recruiters. Your response comment seems to be based on the questionable identity
Military recruiters = US Government
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-10-05 17:53
Recently while waiting for an airplane and being without a book for the flight, I discovered an interesting little genre that usually is found in the science fiction/fantasy section. Alternative history. While reading many of the anti-military postings here I began to speculate about an alternative history in which the United States never developed a military. Of course, there would not be a United States in this version of history.
Unfortunately we live in a dangerous world in which many governments and non-governmental groups will resort to force to achieve their objectives. I understand the wish to avoid military service. I had a high draft lottery number and a student deferment during Vietnam and I was only too happy to avoid having to fight. But a lot of other somebodies fought, were wounded, or died in that misguided, pointless war. We now are in another misguided, pointless war in Iraq and people are fighting and dying. Who do you think got us there? Do you think the military wanted this war?
The U.S. military is a necessary thing. Does it have to be the size it is? Does it have to be configured the way it is? Does it use the best strategies and tactics? Appropriate weapons? There is plenty of room for challenging the way the various branches of the military operate. But does any sane person believe we can do without some sort of military forces?
So if we are going to have a military, I want it to be staffed by people representing many different points of view, values, life experiences, ethnicities, whatever. I would like there to be educated, thoughtful men and women in uniform. So where are we going to get them if not college campuses?
The U.S. military is a sword. If someone misuses a sword, you don't punish the sword. Let's make sure we have a very good sword. But let's really make sure we have someone sensible carrying it.
And just to clarify something before the ad hominems start coming: I never have voted for a Republican candidate for elective office and hope I never will. I would describe my political beliefs as mostly liberal. When I see military recruiters on our campus, I go up and talk with them. This issue shouldn't be defined as a liberal vs. conservative issue.
Re: Military recruiting is hardly under siege
Date: 05-10-05 23:24
Mike, what is the relevance of bringing "the wish to avoid military service" into this discussion? We are talking about people who WANT the equal opportunity to serve our country, not people who are trying to avoid doing so -- as, for example, our current President, current Vice-President, and current Secretary of Defense all managed to do.
Similarly, don't you recognize the irony of your comment
"I want it [the military] to be staffed by people representing many different points of view, values, life experiences, ethnicities, whatever. I would like there to be educated, thoughtful men and women in uniform. So where are we going to get them if not college campuses?" Yes, that's precisely the point. If you want such diversity in the Armed Forces -- and I agree with you, as do all of those who support Equal Opportunity in the military -- then why is it any more rational, or just, for the military to exclude gay or lesbian people now than it was, not very long ago, for the military to exclude, or segregate, African-Americans, Japanese-Americans [but not German-Americans], and women?
And if you want smart, well-educated people in the Armed Forces -- which, again, I and everyone I know of who supports ending the discrimination against gays in the military also agrees -- how can anyone who is concerned about our having an EFFECTIVE military maintain that it makes sense for the the US Armed Forces to have discharged hundreds of its pitifully few personnel who were fluent in Arabic and Farsi and other languages spoken in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- putting the remaining soldiers at greater risk because of their having to depend on non-American local interpreters and translators while they are in harm's way? And why? Not because of any misconduct or lack of performance on these bilingual soldiers' part. Far from it. No, it was solely because they acknowledged that their sexual orientation is different from the majority's.
So, Osama bin Laden and his crew are still out there, laughing at us and plotting and financing death and injury to Americans, because rather than focus on him, the President was obsessing about Iraq and making up stories about WMD -- regardless of the fact that there was and is NO ZERO NADA evidence suggesting any causal relationship between Saddam's regime and terrorists operating within the US (remember, Saddam's was a SECULAR regime, the kind of regime that Osama bin Laden and his sort, who are thoroughly RELIGIOUS people, hate and despise) -- and the big issue that the military is spending its time and energy and lawyers on is not, say, prosecuting the daemonic torture that went on in Abu Ghraib, but rather, strong-arming private colleges and universities to violate their own non-discrimination policies -- which forbid them from allowing on campus ALL employers, public or private, big or small, who discriminate -- and in many cases to violate the laws of their cities or states (although we all believe in states' rights, don't we?) which also prohibit use of facilities by discriminatory employers. Boy is that smart, huh? What a good use of our scarce resources! I feel safer already!
You are right, Mike -- this is not a liberal v. conservative issue. It is an issue of who actually cares about preventing more terrorism and keeping Americans safer and bringing our troops home safe -- and who believes instead that those concerns pale in importance compared with the imperative to keep out of the military people who, for the moment, fall on one end of the spectrum of sexual behavior (because we know that many, many people who identify and consider themselves heterosexual have experimented with some form of homosexuality at one time or another). Except, oops, even people who think that the worst thing that we have to fear is someone gay is in the military have to admit that in the real world, they can't succeed in rooting out all the queers -- there always have and always will be plenty of people who are gay or lesbian in the military -- often, like Alexander the Great, they turn out to be the greatest military heroes.
No, this isn't a liberal v. conservative issue -- it's an honest, let's live in the real world v. a phony, let's pretend the world isn't anything like what it is, issue. The hypocrisy of this entire debate is unbelievable -- reminiscent of the scads of closeted queers among Republicans in high political office who denounce and persecute and pass laws that hurt other gay people, and the hundreds of closeted clergy preying on children, who denounce and condemn other gay people who never have and never would abuse a child. Haven't you seen enough yet to realize that the pressing character issues of our time are honesty and decency and integrity -- not which parts of the body consenting adults like to touch?
But no, you and others will still maintain that it's right, it's just, and it's well worth devoting our resources to this noble cause, in fact it's worth taking it to the United States Supreme Court! Just so that the US military can remain one of the very few armed forces on the planet that still desperately tries to pretend that it is keeping queers out.
It sure is funny: the only people who seem to hate and fear and persecute gay and lesbian people as much as American Republicans are Islamic terrorist mullahs. On this issue, our military is right there with Osama and his crew. Makes you proud, does it? Well, for those of us here in New York City who actually saw the Twin Towers fall and who spent weeks and weeks in the dust clouds near Ground Zero trying to help the victims -- and who are still suffering the economic impact of that horror -- this bitter irony is not all that funny. It's really, really depressing and sad.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 00:38
Maybe it is because of my character that I serve jt, but then again, it might be my 'blind devotion' right melba? Enjoy. Emphasis on the last ten lines. Out.
"There’s a character trait that’s decided by fate
Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won’t face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair,
Till they’re faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who’d know better than we,
Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.
Yes, it seems there are some who’re determined by fate,
To possess not the courage to step up to the plate,
Who shrink from all threat because nothing’s worth war.
But how can they know lest they’ve been there before?
Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace,
To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.
Thank God we have stalwarts who’ll stand for us all,
Who will rise to the challenge at their nation’s call.
The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won’t defend,
So their own unearned freedom won’t perish, won’t end.
To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools.
To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools."
-Russ Vaughn
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 07:39
No recruiting?
No problem. Just take away all federal funding.
We want your money, but we don't want you.
Someone needs a wake up call.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 08:35
There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding the military and what people consider as civil rights and protections. Fact of the matter is the military operates under it’s own set of laws designed to foster unit cohesion and effectiveness as a fighting force. Many of the things we take for granted do not exist in the military such as being able to openly disagree with a supervisor or electing to turn down an assignment. If you review the various comments in this thread, you can see the discord resulting from the discussion of the military’s view of gays and lesbians. The current policies regarding sexual orientation were designed to prevent this kind of discord in the ranks. As enlightened as we may be, a kid from Podunk, USA may not be as tolerant or trusting of a gay service member. As a matter a fact, he or she may be down right frightened of sharing a foxhole with a gay person. It is not a policy of discrimination but rather one of protection and inclusion. The Army is simply saying that if you are gay, just don’t advertise it and you are welcomed to serve. If you advertise it and cause dissention or discord in the ranks, then you are not welcomed to remain in service.
As to recruiting on campus, how is it any different from religious fundamentalists recruiting on campus or fraternities recruiting on campus? The various clubs and fraternal organizations serve narrow interests and do not directly contribute money to the institutions involved. By the way, even private schools indirectly receive government supports in the form of research grants and government subsidized loans for students. Using the argument that the military discriminates to preclude their recruitment on campus is a red herring for a narrow agenda. Fact is the military does discriminate by law due the nature of their mission. If you are fat you can not serve, if you are dumb you can not serve, if you have a criminal record you can not serve and if you have physical or mental challenges you can not serve. Why isn’t anyone advocating for these people? However, I find it interesting that the doors are wide open to corporations that practice discrimination against older Americans in their hiring and retention policies, exploit their workforce by reducing its numbers in the name of shareholder confidence and do not practice good corporate citizenship. Why are voices not raised against these harbingers of greed and excess?
Mike
Date: 05-11-05 08:46
Well said, Mike. War involves the potential destruction of many things beyond human life. That's why Hitler conducted the Baedeker raids--to attempt to break the British spirit by destroying cultural artefacts and locales embodying cultural history. Do you want people issuing orders who have some understanding of the value of such things? There is absolutely no question that the military will build an officer corps in some way, because it requires an officer corps. Perhaps the college campus should be included in the places where it recruits.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 09:07
"I wish they would reinstate the draft. Now that being gay is not the huge stigma it used to be, many guys who wanted out wouldn't think twice about saying they were gay. This would end the "don't ask don't tell" policy in no time, as Selective Service offices find themselves not able to fill their quotas. Soon gays would be welcomed with open arms."
Do you really think that there is such a large population of gays that they would be missed by the military?
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 09:20
The college has a right to say no to the recrutiers BUT by
the same token the Government has a right and a responsibility to say no to the funds that it provides for that school. If the student can not protect the country then he or she should not have the fruits of this country. It is not a free ride. You can not have it both ways. Either you give back to this country what it has given you or you don't. But then do not say the government must provide you with school loans (many default on) or grants. You do not have a right to have it both ways.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 10:00
A misguided, pointless war...
Well, except for the genocide, and except for the rape rooms, and except for the torture chambers, and except for the nonexistence of individual liberties, and except for the violence against women and minorities, and except for the jailed children, and except for the totalitarian system of government, and except for the oil-for-food funds going into the pockets of the dictator and his cronies, and except for the fact that the leaders of Al Qaeda often stayed in Baghdad under the protection of the regime...those things aside, your argument has validity.
My closest colleague and dearest friend lived in Iraq for 30 years--I am certain he would visit your campus and spend some time with you and your students--at his own expense and at your convenience. They may learn a valuable lesson about the evils of America, the evils of our military, and the evils of our President.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 10:37
How would a military recruiter/officer know that a person is gay/lesbian?
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 10:38
Mike wrote:
>" Unfortunately we live in a dangerous world in which many
> governments and non-governmental groups will resort to force to
> achieve their objectives. "
Well said. Unfortunately, too many on the far left don't recognize the dangers, or don't care about them since they often believe that threats to America from countries like North Korea and Iran are basically a natural consequence of America's foreign policies. Too the radicals, "American foreign policy" usually is just a politically correct term for what they call imperial arrogance.
>" So if we are going to have a military, I want it to be
> staffed by people representing many different points of view,
> values, life experiences, ethnicities, whatever. I would like
> there to be educated, thoughtful men and women in uniform. So
> where are we going to get them if not college campuses?"
Another excellent point. We are all better off if we have a well-educated leadership running our military.
> "The U.S. military is a sword. If someone misuses a sword, you
> don't punish the sword. Let's make sure we have a very good
> sword. "
Your sword analogy brings to mind gun control debates in which gun control advocates focus on guns as the problem, and not the people who use them to commit crimes. This same thinking is often applied to the military by the radicals - they believe the military is at least a major part of the problem because it is the tool the US government uses to commit what they see as crimes against humanity, no matter what the mission is and how it is carried out. Therefore, it becomes only just to oppose the militaries efforts to recruit on campuses.
>"This
> issue shouldn't be defined as a liberal vs. conservative
> issue."
I don't think it is liberal vs. conservative, but rather leftist radicalism vs. reasonable demands that the military be more accommodating and open. Recruiters should be honest with students about what they may be getting into. And I believe that the discrimination against homosexuals should stop. However, this does not justify throwing recruiters off campuses, and still expecting funding from the government. The battle for gay rights could be fought in court without resorting to such tactics.
In my opinion, its the campus radicals, both professors and students, who are the ones trying to keep the recruiters off campuses, and it has little to do with the gay rights issue and more to do with their contempt for America in general. How else can one explain why the main organization behind this law suit, Fairness for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), refuses to reveal their members’ names in its court briefs? Do they lack the courage of their convictions? Just look at this directive from FAIR’s website on it’s “seven steps to joining fair” page:
1. Create a coalition of faculty members
Find a group of five to six faculty members who are willing to join you in asking that a vote on joining FAIR be placed on your faculty meeting schedule. Try to get a group of “unlikely bedfellows” – not just the usual suspects.
You can just imagine to whom the “usual suspects” refers.
In 1990 the American Association of Law Schools suddenly decided to amend its bylaws against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, nationality and gender to include a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It then followed this amendment with a rule requiring all employers recruiting on their campuses to provide them with written proof that they do not discriminate on this basis when hiring. I submit that these changes were made to specifically get the military recruiters off these campuses, since they knew full well the military was the only organization that could not provide them with such written proof. It was a cynical use of anti-discrimination rules to stop the military from getting lawyers to serve.
In 1993, President Clinton tried a clumsy fix to military discrimination against homosexuals with his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. When this didn’t work and with law schools all over the country banning military recruiters, Congress responded with the Solomon Amendments to deny these schools Department of Defense funds, which they arrogantly still expected to receive. But the real goal of these schools professors was not to end discrimination, but to start a confrontation with the military and use their pals who are judges in the courts to rule in their favor and get tehm off the school campuses. It’s no more glamorous than that.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 13:10
Stanza themes:
Stanza 1: Shoot first, then ask questions.
Stanza 2: You who do not want to fight are cowards with no understanding
Stanza 3: Stanza 2 continued.
Final 2 lines: Remember B. Russell:
I am firm
You are stubborn
He is a pig-headed fool.
These verses solve the whole question through protracted name calling. Isn't academia grand?
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 13:16
Garrett wrote:
In my opinion, its the campus radicals, both professors and students, who are the ones trying to keep the recruiters off campuses, and it has little to do with the gay rights issue and more to do with their contempt for America in general. How else can one explain why the main organization behind this law suit, Fairness for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), refuses to reveal their members’ names in its court briefs?
Smacks of McCarthism. Is the John Birch Society alive and well.
Again:
It then followed this amendment with a rule requiring all employers recruiting on their campuses to provide them with written proof that they do not discriminate on this basis when hiring. I submit that these changes were made to specifically get the military recruiters off these campuses, since they knew full well the military was the only organization that could not provide them with such written proof. It was a cynical use of anti-discrimination rules to stop the military from getting lawyers to serve.
One believes whatever is convenient to believe.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 13:17
Why not, that is the way business operates. No one willingly gives up anything.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 14:23
BobW wrote:
> "I wish they would reinstate the draft. Now that being gay is
> not the huge stigma it used to be, many guys who wanted out
> wouldn't think twice about saying they were gay. This would end
> the "don't ask don't tell" policy in no time, as Selective
> Service offices find themselves not able to fill their quotas.
> Soon gays would be welcomed with open arms."
>
> Do you really think that there is such a large population of
> gays that they would be missed by the military?
No, but I think there is a large population of people who would want to get out of the draft and therefore say they are gay. This didn't used to be the case, because being gay was so stigmatized, but nowadays many people would not think twice about saying they are gay just to get out of serving. You need some critical reading skills, BobW
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 14:25
BobW wrote:
As enlightened as we may be, a kid from Podunk, USA may not be as tolerant or trusting of a gay service member. As a matter a fact, he or she may be down right frightened of sharing a foxhole with a gay person. It is not a policy of discrimination but rather one of protection and inclusion.
Bob Bob Bob Bob Bob, this is the same excuse used for years to keep blacks and whites separate in the military. The answer then, as it is now, is to educate the Podunks.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 14:27
The same things are going on in African nations, but we are not going to war there. Wonder why? Oh, maybe because there is no oil?
misguided, pointless wrote:
> A misguided, pointless war...
>
> Well, except for the genocide, and except for the rape rooms,
> and except for the torture chambers, and except for the
> nonexistence of individual liberties, and except for the
> violence against women and minorities, and except for the
> jailed children, and except for the totalitarian system of
> government, and except for the oil-for-food funds going into
> the pockets of the dictator and his cronies, and except for the
> fact that the leaders of Al Qaeda often stayed in Baghdad under
> the protection of the regime...those things aside, your
> argument has validity.
>
> My closest colleague and dearest friend lived in Iraq for 30
> years--I am certain he would visit your campus and spend some
> time with you and your students--at his own expense and at your
> convenience. They may learn a valuable lesson about the evils
> of America, the evils of our military, and the evils of our
> President.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 14:30
fj wrote:
> Why not, that is the way business operates. No one
> willingly gives up anything.
Why not what? You really need to reference your replies in here folks. Too many of the responses seem to be non-sequitars.
Re: draft this
Date: 05-11-05 15:27
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Author: draft this
Date: 05-11-05 14:30
fj wrote:
> Why not, that is the way business operates. No one
> willingly gives up anything.
Why not what? You really need to reference your replies in here folks. Too many of the responses seem to be non-sequitars.
Sorry, here you are:
Author: BC
Date: 05-11-05 09:20
The college has a right to say no to the recrutiers BUT by
the same token the Government has a right and a responsibility to say no to the funds that it provides for that school. If the student can not protect the country then he or she should not have the fruits of this country. It is not a free ride. You can not have it both ways. Either you give back to this country what it has given you or you don't. But then do not say the government must provide you with school loans (many default on) or grants. You do not have a right to have it both ways.
You GO Cheryl
Date: 05-11-05 15:56
Cheryl does make some excellent points. As a fellow veteran (4 years active, 4 years reserve), I can say that her arguments are sound. As far as Dale, he is your typical pencil-necked geek academic who never served in the military and knows nothing about it.
One really good quote by Cheryl deserves mention:
"Obviously you have never been in the military. (I have and for 3 years) Your argument is silly. The military isn't discriminating against people who are left handed. Actually, they aren't discriminating against anyone. So long as gays don't tell anyone they're homosexuals, the military isn't going to ask. (As a side note, the Army DOES ask if you are left handed.)"
Moreover, as a heterosexual officer in the army, I had a young enlisted man who I knew was gay and who was my driver. For two years, he and spent many a night sleeping within a few feet of each other and working together 24/7 during training exercises. As long as he kept his life to himself, I did not feel compelled to "out" him or punish him in any way.
Dale wants to make the military a faceless, totalitarian system. It is not. It is made up people; citizens; Americans. Dale may be an academic Stalinist, but the military, in my view, has very few rectionary right-wingers.
to Fellow Vet
Date: 05-11-05 17:08
Thanks, again to you and to Cheryl for the excellent ad hominem attacks. Bless you for your persistence.
Your anecdote does not suffice for evidence. The fact is that gays in the military are discriminated against and treated unfairly due to this characteristic which has nothing to do with occupational qualifications.
What's funny is that you say most of the military isn't reactionary and right wing - have you looked at the voting stats recently? More military families voted for Bush-Cheney than any other ticket, hands down. Something on the order of 3-1 I think. So if the military men and women aren't reactionary right wingers, they certainly support them. What's the real difference here?
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 17:21
draft this wrote:
> >" My closest colleague and dearest friend lived in Iraq for
> 30
> > years--I am certain he would visit your campus and spend
> some
> > time with you and your students--at his own expense and at
> your
> > convenience. They may learn a valuable lesson about the
> evils
> > of America, the evils of our military, and the evils of
> our
> > President."
Thank you for illustrating my point about the Radical Left.
There was a British woman who lived in Iraq for 30 years too. She married an Iraqi man, and worked with an aid organization to help the poor and suffering in Iraq. She did nothing to harm anyone there, and in fact did everything in her powere to help the Iraqi people. her name was Margaret Hassan and she's dead now, thanks to those wonderful Jihadists who blew her brains out on video and gave it to Al-Jazeera to show off. Are these freedom fighters? Romantic revolutionaries. Seem more like murderous thugs to me. I don't know what else to call men who would murder such a kind, innocent woman in cold blood on video. If there is now any good reason to be in Iraq, it's to stop monsters like these murderers.
oil?
Date: 05-11-05 17:28
#1, let's assume we went there for oil. So where is it?
#2, oil is the fuel that runs the engine of democracy. They're swimming in it and and we need it. Since we're not allowed to drill our own oil for fear of endangering the mating habits of the pink bellied moose, we need to buy from the Middle East and always will.
Re: Obs. II
Date: 05-11-05 18:06
"That's a respectable position. I hope you are equally opposed to the growth of big government, since it is replete with politicians and administrators who believe that they know what is right and what is wrong...."
I don't care a rip about the SIZE of the government. Large, medium, small, it doesn't matter. What I care about is what are they actually doing, what is the quality of their work....which right now is a mixed bag, but that's a bit off track.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 18:21
"No, but I think there is a large population of people who would want to get out of the draft and therefore say they are gay. This didn't used to be the case, because being gay was so stigmatized, but nowadays many people would not think twice about saying they are gay just to get out of serving. You need some critical reading skills, BobW"
Has the thought occurred to you that you might need better writing skills? Your explanation buried in your critique of my response (or was that a personal attack?) was much more clear than your original statement. Again, who cares if people would declare themselves gay to avoid the draft? It's nothing new as during the Viet Nam era many straight guys suddenly found love with their own gender to avoid service. As a consequence, their numbers were replaced with patriots, minorities and the economically disadvantaged. One of primary reasons I hate the thought of the draft being reinstated is that it is truly an instrument of racist exploitation. However, this discussion really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Re: You GO Cheryl
Date: 05-11-05 18:32
I am an American born academic currently living in another country, because the Bush administration is using the US military as a tool to disgrace our country and to rob from the poor and to give to the rich. This is not the fault of the military yet is nevertheless sufficient cause for colleges to ban military recruitment should they so choose. That includes public colleges, in my opinion. I am not anti-military, and have taught on military bases although I am not a veteran. I am anti- how the government, especially the current one, USES the military. A compulsory service model such as Sweden's is a good thing, and would also reduce the amount of uncommited 18 year olds attending college just because of family pressure or a lack of other viable alternatives.
The military continues to discriminate, not just against homosexuals but against anyone who thinks differently. This affects not only those who chose to join the military, but civilian contractors, spouses, family members, and the entire community where the military operates. I base this opinion on recent experience teaching and living on military bases.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 18:42
"Bob Bob Bob Bob Bob, this is the same excuse used for years to keep blacks and whites separate in the military. The answer then, as it is now, is to educate the Podunks."
It stands to reason that folks should be educated about gender identity but how does this get accomplished when the issue has deeply rooted religious implications? This process is being attempted all across our country but it will not change things over night. Comparing the segregated units of the thirties and early 1940's to the modern dilemma of integrating gay and lesbian troops into the mainstream military is absurd. Perhaps you never read of the killings and harassment of gay military personnel in the early 1990's? I am sure the same maniacal homophobes still exist in the military today. Two of my best soldiers were gay. This was in the 1980's. I actively cautioned them to avoid being open about it because I knew it could be life threatening. This was before "don't ask, don't tell". In a sense they had no protection. With the institution of "don't ask, don't tell" nobody could force them to confess to their sexual preface and persecute them either formally or informally. In the past they would have been ratted out and prosecuted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and unfortunately by their peers in the form of beatings and murder.
Even the integration of blacks and other minorities into the ranks had its problems with other soldiers refusing to cover them in battle and disallowing them to drink in the NCO and Enlisted Clubs back in the states. During the Viet Nam era race wars broke out both in combat areas as well as other theaters of operations. Black soldiers and white soldiers suffered from "fraggings" and shooting incidents in Viet Nam.
To directly answer your...er...admonition, education is a slow process and until real social integration takes place, the military is in no position to practice social engineering. I think I can address this topic with some credibility as I am a retired NCO from the US Army who served from 1972 to 1993.
Re: Military recruiting under siege
Date: 05-11-05 20:49
As a Vietnam era enlistee, US Air Force 1966, I have a unique take on recuriting on campus. My question is what is the campus afraid of? Are they afraid that the ideas and ideals they are teaching are in question and their students would bow to the ideas of the evil military? Are they afraid that the uniform will sway those to become patriotic and forgo their education for a quick trip to boot camp? Are they afraid that another idea of how recuriters view the world will change those small minded students and draw them into the killing machine? What is the fear? If your gay and want to serve, you know what to expect. From a personal standpoint, I could care less if the man or woman covering my '6' is gay or stright as long as they can shoot stright. Get a grip. This is the era of all volunteer military and therefore people make choices because they will serve their own self interests, whatever they are. I believe in a National Service system and wish we had one. I don't believe in a draft becuae it is to subjective. Let the military recruit (sell) their ideas and if you or mom don't like them, so be it....walk away in freedom of choice.
Re: draft this
Date: 05-11-05 23:33
fj, tell me how is getting killed in Iraq is protecting the country?