Supreme Court Backs Military Recuriters


Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that universities must open their doors to military recruiters if they want to continue receiving federal funds, even if those universities oppose the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Many university law schools had claimed that being forced to associate with the recruiters was an infringement of their free speech rights. But in his unanimous opinion Justice John Roberts countered this argument, citing the federal law that requires universities to accept recruiters in order to receive funding:

The Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech. It affects what law schools must do — afford equal access to military recruiters — not what they may or may not say…. [It] neither limits what the law schools may say nor requires them to say anything.

The opinion also considered campus visits a good recruiting tool. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor added that, in any case, the presence of recruiters does not prevent schools from actively voicing their opposition to military policies. (The federal law is more contentious among many university law schools, because they require recruiters to sign pledges saying that they will not discriminate based on sex, race, gender, or other factors.)

Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at UCLA, explains that the key issue here is the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine.” As Justice Roberts explained, “The Solomon Amendment would be unconstitutional if Congress could not directly require universities to provide military recruiters equal access to their students.” Congress isn’t forcing campuses to welcome military recruiting—universities can always ban recruiters if they’re willing to forego federal funding.

But that’s often easier said than done. Universities receive $35 billion from the federal government each year, with a good chunk of that money going towards medical and scientific research. Academia is not equipped to make up the difference if that funding is pulled, which means that the federal government will continue to have significant leeway in directing what universities can and can’t do.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.