Schools file brief on recruiting

Seven universities, including Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Yale and the University of Pennsylvania, filed a legal brief last week opposing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in anticipation of an upcoming Supreme Court case on the controversial Solomon Amendment.

Princeton, one of three Ivy League schools with a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program on campus, was not approached about participating in the brief because it lacks a law school, according to Vice President and Secretary Robert Durkee '69.

The case before the Court, Rumsfeld v. FAIR, has been brought by the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, a coalition of 37 law schools and law school faculties.

They argue that their freedom of speech is impinged upon by the Solomon Amendment, which allows the federal government to withhold federal funding from any college that does not grant Pentagon recruiters "equal access" to students.

Since its enactment in 1996, the Solomon Amendment — though it applies to all colleges — has been a particular source of contention among law schools, which require recruiters to sign a pledge affirming that they will not discriminate based on sexual orientation or other factors.

The Department of Defense, which discharges known gay service members under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, refuses to sign the pledge.

In the amicus brief, the seven schools agree with FAIR and argue that the amendment restricts their freedom of speech because permitting military recruitment on campus would violate their nondiscrimination policies protecting gay and lesbian students.

Harvard's participation in the recent legal action comes on the heels of a reversal in its policy concerning military recruitment on campus. Harvard Law School, which had previously banned Pentagon recruiters, announced last week that it would no longer do so.

Though a federal district judge originally sided with the government in the case, the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the lower court's decision in November 2004 and struck down the Solomon Amendment.

The Supreme Court is now scheduled to hear the government's appeal of the Philadelphia Court's decision on Dec. 6.

Though the Solomon Amendment does not force universities to accept military recruiters on campus — the schools could simply forgo federal funding — in many cases, the withdrawal of funds would cripple universities' research budgets. Federal grants to universities often reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Princeton's current policy concerning ROTC and on-campus military recruitment stems from a 1990 special committee composed of faculty, staff and both undergraduate and graduate students.

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

The discussion led to the adoption of a three-pronged policy developed by the USG and former Vice President and Secretary Thomas Wright '62.

The University's decision to continue its involvement with ROTC programs and allow access to military recruiters despite its own nondiscrimination policy has always been a deliberate, voluntary one, Durkee said in an interview last year.

"The University's position was adopted in response to campus interest in these [ROTC and other military opportunities], not in response to the Solomon Amendment," Durkee said in December 2004. "So they are not policies we were 'forced' to adopt."

In April, however, a group of students submitted a petition urging the University to remove ROTC from campus, arguing that the program violates the University's nondiscrimination policy. The petition, which stirred campus debate, was subsequently tabled.

In an email Sunday, Durkee again defended the University's decision to allow military recruiters and ROTC.

"Even recruiters who follow discriminatory practices in hiring are not permitted to follow discriminatory practices in deciding which students may approach them during their campus visits or which students have access to the information they provide," Durkee said.

Officials at other universities, notably former University provost and current Penn president Amy Gutmann, suggest that the very presence of military recruiters is incompatible with their schools' values.

The upcoming case "is an important priority for Penn because we have a policy that says that recruiters on campus should not discriminate," Gutmann told The Daily Pennsylvanian last week. "[The amendment is] really limiting our freedom."

Chai Feldblum, a constitutional scholar at Georgetown University and member of FAIR, previously criticized Princeton for its lack of participation in the case.

"Princeton can become a leader among schools that have ROTC programs and no law schools — a leadership niche role," she told The Daily Princetonian in December.

But joining a lawsuit against the Solomon Amendment would be an unwise choice for Princeton, University provost and fellow constitutional scholar Christopher Eisgruber '83 argued in response at the time.

"Universities need to choose with care the rare occasions when they join amicus briefs," he said. "We are educational and research institutions, not advocacy organizations. Participating in a lawsuit makes most sense when the issue is directly related to our operations or to our special expertise."