March 28, 2008

Defense Department Finalizes Rule Barring Restricted Campus Recruiting

The U.S. Department of Defense today issued a final rule in the Federal Register outlining steps the department can take to withhold federal funds from colleges and universities that place restrictions on military recruiters and the Reserve Officer Training Corps program. The rule arises from a defense authorization bill passed in 2004, which was upheld by the Supreme Court two years ago.

The final rule does outline an exception that allows students to continue receiving federal financial aid if their college happens to be one that the Defense Department deems restrictive to military recruiting. Federal money that goes to students — including Pell grants, FFEL-program loans, federal direct loans, and federal work-study funds — would not be jeopardized. —JJ Hermes

Comments

1. Nothing like a little blackmail. What ever happened to all the blather about keeping the Federal government out of State business and regulation and control?
   Is the military getting a tad desperate? Maybe George’s twin twit daughters could set a good example by signing up.

   — AW    Mar 28, 04:47 PM    #

2. AW,
   The Federal government is willing to stay out of “State business and regulation and control.” If an institution wishes to give up Federal Student Loans, Pell Grants, Federal Campus Based programs, Federal research funding and other Federal assistance they can choose to ban ROTC or recruiters. If it wants tax payers to provide funding through the Federal government then an institution is obligated cooperate with the other Federal policies. It is a shame that taxpayers couldn’t just provide handouts and expect nothing in return. That “desperate” military you mock puts there lives on the line to defend the very nation that allows your bratty attitude. You comments show the arrogance of a spoiled adolescent to demand other peoples’ money and expect it on your own terms. Your lack of maturity further shows through in the adolescent jab at the administration- oh, sorry, that might even be an adult move. Attack the President’s daughters instead. That is constructive.

   — PJ    Mar 28, 05:09 PM    #

3. There is a valid argument, though, this is not simply tax payers money and therefore (utlimately) they have the full authority to give it, or deny it, on THEIR terms. They do not. It is based on much more than this. They pay the taxes to a Federal Govt., that is (presumably) built on, and is supposed to actually operate on, the Constitution. You cannot control how your tax funds are spent, not directly, not individually, not dollar by dollar, nor purpose by purpose. I oppose spending on X, Y, and Z. But I have anything but full control to say that my money cannot be spent on those things. Rather, we all pay it to a Federal Govt. that gets to decide how it is spent. The Fed. govt. (supposedly) operates based on the Constitution. And, in the Constitution, is this concept of limited Federal power, rights reserved to various entities other than the Federal ones (e.g., states), etc. What AW is saying, and it is a valid argument, is that the current administration (supposedly) trumpets small Govt., restricted Federal powers, states’ rights, on and on. But it’s utter meaningless blather – because they do so only so long as these principles enable what they want to do. However, just as soon as something they want means MORE spending rather than less, they do it. And when they want some particular Federal power, such as the one being discussed here, they simply throw out the principle by which they claim they are being guided. It’s not that DoD denial of Federal funds to those schools who restrict recruiters is necessarily right, or wrong. It’s the bare-faced lying disingenuousness of the administration that says it (supposedly) wants smaller Federal Govt. and restricted Federal power, but then actually does exactly the opposite. Crowing example: Cheney who believes in so much presidential power that the office would be nearly King.

   — David    Mar 28, 05:43 PM    #

4. While a taxpayer cannot pick and chose which policies are paid for the premise that Bush is liar regarding small government because of the ROTC and recruiters on campus, it is a little silly to ignore the fact that ALL that Federal money is not in and of itself BIG GOVERNMENT. The argument is still based on the premise that the institution should be able to take money for nothing from the federal government, but not have to follow its other policies. Just as an idividual tax payer cannot pick and chose where their tax money goes, a recipient of funding cannot write the rules from the government that provides them. If the Bush administration has been such bare-faced liars about smaller government, then it should be pointed out that much of that part of that lie has been to advance government by increasing spending on the Dept of Education about 120% while in office. Further, should one dislike the recruiters or ROTC on campus due to a disdain for the DoD, it is arrogant to deny those opportunities to students that avail themselves of such programs. This is 2008, not 1968. We have a volunteer army. If it is means to an education or an oppotunity for a career for someone wishing to serve their country, it shouldn’t be restricted by individuals that have the means to an education on their own. AND if the means are based on Federal assistance, trying to restrict opportunities for others is just hypocracy.

   — PJ    Mar 28, 06:30 PM    #

5. Of course, as one might expect, PJ employs the conservative strategy of stating the most extreme case and then arguing as if that is what the other side is actually saying.

   In fact no one is asking for, or receiving, money for nothing. Services are provided, research is conducted, and reports are published. Some of this is paid for federally, and there the transaction should end.

   One concern over the presence of recruiters on campus is that they have, indeed, begun to employ means indicative of a certain degree of desperation. The exhausted state of our troops and our army provide ample reason to suppose this continues to be so.

   I am certain no one intends to mock or demean our soldiers. But can you honestly provide a better example of military incompetence and political hubris than the disaster single handedly created by the current administration and its cronies?

   I hope my college administration will pause before throwing open personal files on all their students to unhindered examination and use by recruiters; before tailoring their research programs to suit the political ends of a sadistic, anti-scientific, ideologically driven administration; before
   engaging in activities that in any way indicate an endorsement for their students to enlist; before providing cover for an administration that has not only taken unparalleled power unto itself but has pulled every trick imaginable to avoid listening, answering or responding to the people it fraudulently swore to represent.

   — Old Left John    Mar 29, 06:29 PM    #

6. And let us not forget that the students, faculty, staff, and administrators of colleges and universities are also taxpayers, rather than leeches.
   We’re moving toward an economic and political system whereby, if you want to keep the Federal government out of your life, or your children’s lives, you have to hide those children in private schools that do not accept Federal aid. My spouse and I have managed to keep our children unrecruited; however, I doubt that most Americans are able to do so. Should the youngster down the street be more vulnerable to government intrusion, in the case manifested by recruiters on campus (and those student files mandated through No Child Left Behind) simply because his parents , who are themselves taxpayers, enroll him (or her) in a public school? Doubtful.
   It is our duty to educate our children to live good and productive lives. It is shortsighted and venal in the extreme to claim that the taxes we all pay to educate our citizens mean that the governments that disburse those funds should have any say in the curricula of those schools, or that the military is owed access to those students, who will themselves pay taxes, raise families, lead industries, and generally enrich and protect this countires interests, in the public and private sectors, because of our collective investment in their education.

   — Angela    Apr 1, 08:27 AM    #

Previous: You’re Not the Biggest Loser. Or Maybe You Are.
Next: Who Makes the Most? College President, Surgeon, or Senator?