University should lobby against Solomon Amendment

University administrators have recently reaffirmed their intention not to file a brief in opposition to the Solomon Amendment, a 1996 law that withholds federal research funding from schools that ban military recruiting on campus. The Philadelphia-based Third Circuit held the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional last November, ruling that the law infringes free speech rights by forcing institutions to violate their own anti-discrimination policies. The Pentagon has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Dec. 6.

We are largely unpersuaded by the constitutional challenge to the Solomon Amendment, so we are disinclined to advocate a more active role for Princeton in the pending litigation. The free speech claim is tenuous because the law does not condition funding on an institution's willingness to express approval of "don't ask, don't tell" or of military policy in general. If, for instance, Congress passed a law limiting funding to universities whose faculties support the war in Iraq, then we'd have a free speech issue. The Solomon Amendment punishes schools not for expressing particular views, but for acting in a manner that Congress regards as inconsistent with the national interest. That is a Congressional prerogative.

But not every prerogative is wisely or justly exercised. Even if we are not convinced that the Solomon Amendment is unconstitutional, we remain strongly opposed to the law as a matter of principle and policy.

We believe, in principle, that the institutional autonomy of the nation's universities is intrinsically valuable, and that it is a good thing for different institutions to follow their own consciences in setting internal policy. The Solomon Amendment jeopardizes this autonomy. While it does not require universities to accept ROTC and military recruitment on campus, the threat of lost funding could place universities in a compromising position. Congressional appropriations for university research are meant to advance knowledge — not to provide Congress with leverage to influence the policies of private institutions.

Some, of course, would argue that the presence of ROTC and military recruiters on every campus is essential for national security. We find this argument to be rather specious. Even if the Solomon Amendment were revoked, most universities would continue to allow military recruiters and ROTC access to their campuses. The few that would refuse would hardly jeopardize the operations of an institution as large and complex as the military. Indeed, in this age of high technology, the scientific research conducted at these universities — some of the funding for which would be threatened under the Solomon Amendment — probably contributes more to national security than a handful of new recruits. There is no reason to believe that national security trumps institutional autonomy in this case.

With all the national attention that will be focused on the Solomon Amendment during the upcoming Supreme Court battle, the University should now redouble its efforts to lobby in Congress for the law's repeal. Unfortunately, however, all indications suggest that University lobbyists will remain relatively inactive on this issue. Because our current practice is to voluntarily permit both ROTC and military recruiting, University officials have argued that we have little to gain — in practice — from the repeal of the Solomon Amendment.

We find this reasoning to be seriously flawed. Even if the University's position on military recruitment was not adopted in response to the Solomon Amendment, the law may become a factor if the University chooses to reconsider its policy on ROTC. We should act now to ensure that the threat of lost funding never enters into our future deliberations.

The Solomon Amendment also has implications beyond the ROTC debate. The law compromises the integrity of all universities as self-governing communities and sets precedent for further assaults on institutional autonomy. Sooner or later, the degradation of this principle will hit home at Princeton. We understand that the University must be careful in picking its battles. But this is a battle worth picking.