View Full Version : Recruiters on Campus
BMT (RIP)
06-07-2005, 18:03
Law Students, Medal of Honor Recipients File Brief in Military Recruiting Case
(CNSNews.com) - A group of law students and Medal of Honor recipients have filed a friend-of-the-court brief calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court decision that struck down an amendment requiring colleges and universities to provide equal access to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal funds. The brief said that if the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is allowed to stand, faculty members would be able to prevent "all students - the primary beneficiaries of academic freedom - from exercising their First Amendment right to listen, on campus, to the message of the military.""
AngelsSix
06-07-2005, 23:44
What, they can't afford to go to a recruiting office?? The damn recruiters will pick you up and drop you off, for crying out loud!! :rolleyes:
Well, if they ban recruiters, they should, by the same token, prevent the "anti-war" protesters and the free-basing liberal protests that occur. That being said, what do you think would happen if schools started doing that?
Kyobanim
06-08-2005, 07:00
Well, if they ban recruiters, they should, by the same token, prevent the "anti-war" protesters and the free-basing liberal protests that occur. That being said, what do you think would happen if schools started doing that?
Maybe they'd go to class and learn something.
Maybe they'd go to class and learn something.
Class Schmlass its not really all that important although for some crazy reason it costs tens of thousands of dollars a year. :eek:
Anyways about this whole recruiters on campus thing in my opinion the reason its so important is because they give kids who wouldn't think about joining the military an access to information and benefits. Plus it gives kids who mostly only see one side of US politics the ability to talk and meet some of those people that are on the other side.
Rschoeneck
06-08-2005, 08:46
Remember hearing this on NPR, and finally located the brief.
"The U.S. Defense Department has denied federal funding to two law schools (William Mitchell School of Law, and Vermont Law School because they do not allow military recruiters on campus. Now the U.S. House of Representatives is putting forward a new law would require the Secretary of Defense to compile a list of colleges and universities that don't allow the military to recruit on campus."
Time to tighten the pursetrings on some of the big boys (Yale, Harvard, etc. ) in my opinion.
Just my .02
Edited to add link to the audio portion of the NPR article.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4675926
Achilles
06-08-2005, 09:04
It's not like the pinkos are forced off to war with a rifle and a k-pot... As American citizens with no draft in effect, their argument about having recruiters on campuses can't really be substantiated IMO.
tyrsnbdr
06-08-2005, 10:50
Remember that this all started at Harvard because the US Military discriminates against Gays.
Remember that this all started at Harvard because the US Military discriminates against Gays.
Please explain your post Sir. I want to make sure that I don't have the wrong intent before I post a reply.
Doc
The Reaper
06-08-2005, 20:37
Remember that this all started at Harvard because the US Military discriminates against Gays.
The US military doesn't discriminate against gay people. Many gays are currently serving.
The military, IAW a law passed by Congress, requires that gay personnel do not engage in acts in violation of the UCMJ, and keep their status to themselves. "Don't ask, don't tell."
The majority of homosexual discharges are granted to initial entry soldiers at a few posts who discover their orientation right after they discover that the military is heavy on authority figures, intolerant of nonconformists, and real training is a lot harder than it looks in the video games.
TR
...who discover their orientation right after they discover that the military is heavy on authority figures, intolerant of nonconformists, and real training is a lot harder than it looks in the video games.ahem...as a non-conformist, i have to say that the Army is more tolerant of nonconformists than they are deviants...
Peregrino
06-08-2005, 21:46
ahem...as a non-conformist, i have to say that the Army is more tolerant of nonconformists than they are deviants...
ROTFLMAO :D
The Reaper
06-08-2005, 22:20
ahem...as a non-conformist, i have to say that the Army is more tolerant of nonconformists than they are deviants...
As a deviant who can conform, I find that the Army is quite tolerant. :D
TR
tyrsnbdr
06-09-2005, 08:00
My intent of my post is that because the Military has the policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell,” the military is a prejudiced institution and Harvard won’t allow prejudice institutions to recruit on their campus. Even though you and I know that we only kick out a rare few on this policy, Harvard still uses it as the base of their policy. Then other schools jumped on the bandwagon and before we know it, it’s going to the high courts. My hippie High School wouldn’t allow recruiters on it’s campus well before this ever happened at Harvard, but know one cared and know one advertised the issue. Harvard was trying to make a political statement with their policy.
I hope that the Supreme Court hears the case and rules on the Military’s side.
My intent of my post is that because the Military has the policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell,” the military is a prejudiced institution and Harvard won’t allow prejudice institutions to recruit on their campus. Even though you and I know that we only kick out a rare few on this policy, Harvard still uses it as the base of their policy. Then other schools jumped on the bandwagon and before we know it, it’s going to the high courts. My hippie High School wouldn’t allow recruiters on it’s campus well before this ever happened at Harvard, but know one cared and know one advertised the issue. Harvard was trying to make a political statement with their policy.
I hope that the Supreme Court hears the case and rules on the Military’s side.
I wonder if Harvard still lets Microsoft recruit on their campus? I mean they're prejudiced too right? :rolleyes:
Roguish Lawyer
06-09-2005, 10:26
because the Military has the policy of "Don't ask, Don't tell,” the military is a prejudiced institution
What do you mean by "prejudiced"? Is it "prejudiced" when it denies entry to people with physical or mental disabilities, for example? Is that type of "prejudice" bad? Is it "prejudice" to require SF candidates to successfully complete selection and the Q course before handing them berets and tabs?
Most classifications are actionable on equal protection grounds only when there is no rational basis for employing them. Some, like race, are subject to heightened scrutiny for historical and other reasons. But you have to ask yourself whether sexual orientation is something that has no impact on someone's ability to serve effectively in the military, or whether it is truly irrelevant. Unless you somehow reach the latter conclusion and choose to ignore well-established judicial deference to the military, I think you are throwing around a politically charged and offensive word without understanding its meaning or application.
And you have completely ignored the Navy.
tyrsnbdr
06-09-2005, 11:22
Most classifications (for prejudiced) are actionable on equal protection grounds only when there is no rational basis for employing them. Some, like race, are subject to heightened scrutiny for historical and other reasons. But you have to ask yourself whether sexual orientation is something that has no impact on someone's ability to serve effectively in the military, or whether it is truly irrelevant. Unless you somehow reach the latter conclusion and choose to ignore well-established judicial deference to the military, I think you are throwing around a politically charged and offensive word without understanding its meaning or application.
And you have completely ignored the Navy.
Your right, “prejudiced” is not the best word. I’ll rephrase my thesis: Harvard has an issue with US Military policy and is banning recruiters on campus as a political statement against this policy.
Here is an article I found on CNN website about the Army not making its recruiting quota. I bring the attention to the picture of the protestors trying to get the recruiters out of Seattle. I guess this whole recruiting issue is spreading from the campuses to the streets. I didn’t live through the ‘60s, so I have no base for comparison for the civil unrest.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/army.recruiting.ap/index.html
I did not mention the Navy, because I don’t know anything about their involvement in this issue. Can you please enlighten me?
Roguish Lawyer
06-09-2005, 14:07
I did not mention the Navy, because I don’t know anything about their involvement in this issue. Can you please enlighten me?
I think I will defer to others on that one. For now, anyway. :D
BTW, in your profile, which "NSC" are you referring to?
tyrsnbdr
06-09-2005, 14:25
Ahh, I thought you’re making a joke out of it, but...
NSC= Net Support Company. With Transformation the division Signal BN was split up and given to the UAs. The NSC is the company the supports the Div Main, TAC 1 and TAC 2. Major CO, SGM, and 2 det commanders w/ 1SGs is some of the task org of the company.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-09-2005, 14:39
Here is an article I found on CNN website
Well now, there is an organization with an objective viewpoint. The one thing I can truly say about CNN is that it constantly fails to meet the exceptionally low standards it consistently sets for itself and those that, for some unexplained rationale, depend on them for clarity on issues.
Jack Moroney
We need to stop this idea that the military needs to be diverse like the population it serves. The military spends too much time, money and training making recruits into something they've never dreamed they could become; Soldiers.
Soldiers are different. Always have been, always will. You lose your individual self and become part of something bigger than you can imagine when you sign up and make it through training. Soldiers aren't individuals, they are a Team. Teams think and act as one unit.
11 states voted down the gay marriage proposal so I'm thinking the civilians aren't digging this situation either.
Doc
Bravo1-3
06-09-2005, 15:11
You're going to love this:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/227497_paynter08.html
aricbcool
06-09-2005, 17:39
We need to stop this idea that the military needs to be diverse like the population it serves.
Amen Doc.
When it comes to the moment of truth, I think that this could really bite us in the ass.
--Aric
I've been a long-time reader of the forums but haven't really posted (seeing as all of my questions have pretty much already been addressed). Sometimes, however, I see something that irritates me to the point of speaking up, so I guess this is one of those cases.
You're going to love this:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynter/227497_paynter08.html
Ms. Paynter is giving her readers "advice," telling them to not allow their children to serve in the military. Then she takes issue with the "aggresive tactics" being used by the Marines.... jeez, who would have ever thought the Marines would be aggressive in the pursuit of a goal. This is where Ms. Paynter seems confused. If nobody allows their children to volunteer, then the government will have to draft its soldiers, a course of action to which the "journalist" in question would probably be highly opposed.
It's a similar issue i've noticed around here. I go to a very white, affluent school. So many students here or their parents support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet turn around and ask me incredulously, "Why do you want to serve? It's dangerous!" They "believe in the war" and "support the troops" but they seem to be nothing more than fair-weather fans. Their "support" ends at the point where they might have to actually do something or make a sacrifice. Want to really support the troops? Pick up a rifle and k-pot and join them. Just my opinion.
aricbcool
06-09-2005, 20:18
So many students here or their parents support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet turn around and ask me incredulously, "Why do you want to serve? It's dangerous!"
I get alot of that too.
Some people will never understand.
--Aric
Ms. Paynter is giving her readers "advice," telling them to not allow their children to serve in the military. Then she takes issue with the "aggresive tactics" being used by the Marines.... .
It's pretty obvious this woman has an agenda...and I'd bet good money she took "journalistic" license (in quotes since I personally don't consider her article journalism) and embellished the story to the point of sensationalism.
Histrionics at its finest....
It's pretty obvious this woman has an agenda...and I'd bet good money she took "journalistic" license (in quotes since I personally don't consider her article journalism) and embellished the story to the point of sensationalism.
Histrionics at its finest....
I'd be more then willing to bet she barely talked to the kid involved but got most of her "source" information from the mother who since she was so emotionally involved distorted the information. However if it was completely accurate I think its safe to admit the recruiters may have gone a little overboard in persuing the kid.
Bravo1-3
06-10-2005, 00:35
I'd be more then willing to bet she barely talked to the kid involved but got most of her "source" information from the mother who since she was so emotionally involved distorted the information. However if it was completely accurate I think its safe to admit the recruiters may have gone a little overboard in persuing the kid.
Actually, it's pretty obvious that she made the story up. No last names, no firm locations... and she's a full-on nut job.