Lobbyists sue over military recruiting law

"Do schools get to decide what lessons they teach about equality, or does the government get to tell them?"

With this question, E. Joshua Rosenkrantz summarized the reason for a lawsuit his clients recently filed against a federal law, the 1996 Solomon Amendment, which lets the government withhold funds from institutions of higher learning that deny military recruiters access to campus.

Rosenkrantz — an attorney for HellerEhrman — filed the suit on behalf of five independent organizations: Forum for Academic Institutional Rights, Society of American Law Teachers, the Coalition for Equality, Rutgers Gay and Lesbian Caucus and the largest alliance of law professors in the country.

The lawsuit originated in a controversy on the military's policy toward homosexuality, "don't ask, don't tell," which is inconsistent with the nondiscrimination policies of most schools.

Allowing the military complete freedom to recruit in the spirit of "don't ask, don't tell" would undermine the integrity of campus equality, the plaintiff argues.

HellerEhrman is thus challenging the constitutionality of the amendment. On Friday, the plaintiffs motioned for a preliminary injunction, saying the government's refusal to respect nondiscrimination policies violates the First Amendment.

Though the University is not directly involved in the suit because it has no law school, the implications of the case extend to universities in general. The verdict could affect educational autonomy, or the level of government control over school policy.

"The crux of this lawsuit is who gets to decide who shapes the academic environment," Rosenkrantz said. "These schools send a clear message, and that message is, 'We do not discriminate. No exceptions.' The military wants them to make an exception."

According to HellerEhrman's position, the government's recent actions have been unjustified on two counts. The government has withheld grants from university programs that are not military-related, though the Solomon amendment stipulates that there must be some corellation between the military's interest and the program from which it keeps funding.

Also, the plaintiff claims, the government has moved beyond the strictures of the law in refusing to respect the specific recruiting policies of various universities.

For instance, many schools have requested that the military recruit only through organizations such as ROTC. Within the last two years, however, the military has begun insisting on broader access to students.

Previously, schools have managed to reconcile the Solomon Amendment with nondiscrimination policy, but increasing demands from the government have forced a confrontation between ethics and practicality.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Though reluctant to compromise their principles on the subject, many universities cannot afford to sacrifice government funding, which, in some cases, is roughly $350 million.

Though "it would be a wise policy for the government to minimize its interference with University policies that relate to the educational mission of the school," University politics professor Keith E. Whittington said, the defense's argument is also legally viable.

"As a constitutional matter, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government has wide discretion in attaching conditions to the receipt and use of federal funds," Whittington said.

Both sides await the court's decision on last Friday's injunction. Pending the actual trial, the plaintiff hopes schools will be given discretion in the question of military recruiting until the Court has delivered a decisive verdict on the legitimacy of the Solomon Amendment.