Supremes to Colleges: Military Recruiter Bans Illegal

I understand and agree in principle with what you're saying, Thomas, but pragmatically, any tax ultimately is at the expense of the wage earner - whether in the the form of higher prices, lower wages/benefits, or restricted product/service availability. In the end, its a closed loop - consumption requires production facillities which require production workers who require compensation in order to pay for what is consumed. Whether government is considered a symbiote or a parasite pretty much comes down to point-of-view.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

woiyo wrote:
" mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money. "

maybe they can do it the way a number of universities do it here - ban all recruiters from the campus. that seems to work quite well.

It appears that they can: "The Solomon Amendment denies federal funding to an institution of higher education that 'has a policy or practice ... that either prohibits, or in effect prevents' the military ' from gaining accesss to campuses, or access to students ... on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.' [...] The Government and FAIR agree on what this statute requires: In order for a law school and its university to receive federl funding, the law school must offer military recruiters the same accesss to its campus and students that it provides to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access." Supreme Court opinion, page 5. As the decision mentions on page 7, universities comply with the Solomon Amendment if they allow no recruiters at all, military or not.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I understand and agree in principle with what you're saying, Thomas, but pragmatically, any tax ultimately is at the expense of the wage earner - whether in the the form of higher prices, lower wages/benefits, or restricted product/service availability. In the end, its a closed loop - consumption requires production facillities which require production workers who require compensation in order to pay for what is consumed. Whether government is considered a symbiote or a parasite pretty much comes down to point-of-view.

I don't understand you on two accounts, one of which I think we already argued about. (1) If it's a closed loop, as you correctly state, there is no `ultimate' payer. Rather, the cost gets distributed all over the loop. (2) I don't understand how profit earners get off the hook completely in your model. Sure, they can get some of their lost profits back from consumers and workers -- but the same process works in reverse too: Workers will tolerate only so much of a pay cut before they switch employers; customers will tolerate only so much of a price increase before they switch providers. In the end, all stakeholders pay, and it makes no sense to single out one of them as the `ultimate' payer.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
woiyo wrote:
" mandates that universities give the military the same access as other recruiters or forfeit federal money. "

maybe they can do it the way a number of universities do it here - ban all recruiters from the campus. that seems to work quite well.

It appears that they can: "The Solomon Amendment denies federal funding to an institution of higher education that 'has a policy or practice ... that either prohibits, or in effect prevents' the military ' from gaining accesss to campuses, or access to students ... on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting in a manner that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access to campuses and to students that is provided to any other employer.' [...] The Government and FAIR agree on what this statute requires: In order for a law school and its university to receive federl funding, the law school must offer military recruiters the same accesss to its campus and students that it provides to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access." Supreme Court opinion, page 5. As the decision mentions on page 7, universities comply with the Solomon Amendment if they allow no recruiters at all, military or not.

I dunno, Thomas - the Supremes reversed the lower court's decision, and upheld the Solomon Amendment, which states specifically:

Quote:

Section 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and certain other departments and agencies

(a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to Campus. - No
funds described in subsection (d)(1) may be provided by contract or
by grant (including a grant of funds to be available for student
aid) to an institution of higher education (including any
subelement of such institution) if the Secretary of Defense
determines that that institution (or any subelement of that
institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when
implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents -
(1) the Secretary of a military department from maintaining,
establishing, or operating a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer
Training Corps (in accordance with section 654 of this title and
other applicable Federal laws) at that institution (or any
subelement of that institution); or
(2) a student at that institution (or any subelement of that
institution) from enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve
Officer Training Corps at another institution of higher
education.
(b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Military Recruiting on Campus.
- No funds described in subsection (d)(2) may be provided by
contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be available
for student aid) to an institution of higher education (including
any subelement of such institution) if the Secretary of Defense
determines that that institution (or any subelement of that
institution) has a policy or practice (regardless of when
implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect prevents -
(1) the Secretary of a military department or Secretary of
Homeland Security from gaining entry to campuses, or access to
students (who are 17 years of age or older) on campuses, for
purposes of military recruiting; or
(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of military
recruiting to the following information pertaining to students
(who are 17 years of age or older) enrolled at that institution
(or any subelement of that institution):
(A) Names, addresses, and telephone listings.
(B) Date and place of birth, levels of education, academic
majors, degrees received, and the most recent educational
institution enrolled in by the student.
(c) Exceptions. - The limitation established in subsection (a) or
(b) shall not apply to an institution of higher education (or any
subelement of that institution) if the Secretary of Defense
determines that -
(1) the institution (and each subelement of that institution)
has ceased the policy or practice described in that subsection;
or
(2) the institution of higher education involved has a
longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious
affiliation.
(d) Covered Funds. - (1) The limitation established in subsection
(a) applies to the following:
(A) Any funds made available for the Department of Defense.
(B) Any funds made available in a Departments of Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
(2) The limitation established in subsection (b) applies to the
following:
(A) Funds described in paragraph (1).
(B) Any funds made available for the Department of Homeland
Security.
(e) Notice of Determinations. - Whenever the Secretary of Defense
makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or (c), the
Secretary -
(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to the
Secretary of Education and to Congress; and
(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the
determination and the effect of the determination on the
eligibility of the institution of higher education (and any
subelement of that institution) for contracts and grants.
(f) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register. - The Secretary of
Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every six months
a list of each institution of higher education that is currently
ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a determination of
the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).

" ... No funds described in subsection (d)(2) may be provided by contract or by grant...to an institution of higher education...(determined to have) a policy or practice...that either prohibits, or in effect prevents... the Secretary of a military department or Secretary of Homeland Security from gaining entry to campuses, or access to students...on campuses, for purposes of military recruiting ... "

Now, I read that as conditioning elegiblity for receipt of Federal Funds upon allowing access to students 17 years of age and older by military recruiters irrespective of any other consideration, apart from the exception granted an institution of legitimately established pacifist structural philosophy. Nothing in the Solomon Amendment, which the Supremes upheld, calls for equal access to be granted military recruiters, it calls for military recruiters to be granted access, period.

The full text of the SCOTUS decision: 04-1152 Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc. (Note: 25 page .pdf document)

While the Supremes did emphasize equal access, it does not appear to me the Solomon Amendment requires equality of recruiter access, it requires military recruiter access if an institution of higher learning is to qualify for receipt of Federal Funds.

On your second point, yes we've argued it before ... in my view, its all about people, without whom there neither would nor could be institutions. Its a closed loop, the costs are spread throughout the loop, but that in no way affects the plain and simple fact that its all about the people. Without the people there is neither means nor cause for any of the rest. In the end, its the people.

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

MM,

Why, yes!

I think all Military child molestors and rapists should not be allowed near any of those places! I'm glad we agree!

Anon

So,you would allow child molesters and rapists that are politicians,police officers,firefighters,gas station attendants,bus drivers,doctors,nurses,priests,truck drivers,etc. access to schools and every place children might be,or into other positions of power.

Or,are you gonna say that there are no other types except military?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Anon-Voter wrote:
MM,

Why, yes!

I think all Military child molestors and rapists should not be allowed near any of those places! I'm glad we agree!

Anon

So,you would allow child molesters and rapists that are politicians,police officers,firefighters,gas station attendants,bus drivers,doctors,nurses,priests,truck drivers,etc. access to schools and every place children might be,or into other positions of power.

Or,are you gonna say that there are no other types except military?

No, just that the military are the worst, and we pay them to be predators. Thanks to no-child-left behind, we give them unfettered access to prey on our children at any time they wish and we can do nothing about it!! More suits filed just today in Sonoma and Sonora counties to stop the Military child molestors from their hunting.

Anon

0 Replies

anon,
Are you actually saying that the US military has more child rapists in it percentagewise then the general population?

Do you have any figures to back that up,or is it just your imagination talking?

0 Replies

Anon, are you able to produce any statistics supportive of the notion military recruiters are any more prone to "prey on children" in the sense of molestation and abuse than are adults of any other demographic? While I've not chased down the question, I'll hazard a guess military recruiters as a demographic are no more likely to be child abusers than would be the case with any other demographic. I'll note that while the Roman Catholic priesthood got a lot of press for the proclivities and activities of some of their compatriots, and The Church Herself came in for a good bit of (well deserved, IMO) criticism for Her handling of the matter, that several independent studies have found Roman Catholic priests as a demographic actually are statistically less likely to perpetrate child abuse than are members of other authority/responsibility demographics, including such as the clerics of other faiths, those associated with the educational infrastructure both secular and parochial, daycare workers, medical professionals, and just plain adults in general. I would be unsurprised to find military recruiters statistically are less likely to perpetrate child abuse than would be members of many other demographics.

0 Replies

Timber,
You dont really expect anon to be able to back up his claims,do you?

0 Replies

I think you guys may be missing the point. Anon is attempting to redefine the term child molester to include anyone who would advise them to join the military. Recruiters, or even parents. Once again the liberal "it takes a village" chant is heard, taking away our ability to parent or even advise our own children.

Anon, you've gone too far.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think you guys may be missing the point. Anon is attempting to redefine the term child molester to include anyone who would advise them to join the military. Recruiters, or even parents. Once again the liberal "it takes a village" chant is heard, taking away our ability to parent or even advise our own children.

Anon, you've gone too far.

Yesindeedy - cjhsa, the arbiter of decency boundaries.....

0 Replies

So snood, you agree that military recruiters are paramount to child molesters?

0 Replies

Interesting perspectives here. Come to think of it, teachers have been known to abuse their position of authority and sexually molest the children they are hired to care for. Would that make it constitutional for schools to collectively ban teachers from their grounds?

0 Replies

Well certainly Thomas. And the Roman Catholic Church should definitely ban all priests from entering the church buildings don't you think? Also no nursery workers should be allowed anywhere near kids and police officers should have to stay completely away from the general population.

It certainly makes more sense than banning military recruiters because they MIGHT be rapists. Has there been a huge problem with military recruiters in that regard I wonder?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

So snood, you agree that military recruiters are paramount to child molesters?

"Tantamount." The word is "tantamount," not "paramount."

http://lindsayism.com/uploaded_images/The_More_You_Know_4-749146.jpg

0 Replies

Thanks Joe, I appreciate the correction. Really. My English skills have worsened over the years working with engineers who can't spell "lose" and often are ESL.

But I think my point was clear.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I think you guys may be missing the point. Anon is attempting to redefine the term child molester to include anyone who would advise them to join the military. Recruiters, or even parents. Once again the liberal "it takes a village" chant is heard, taking away our ability to parent or even advise our own children.

Anon, you've gone too far.

No CJ,

You are Ad-Libbing again. That isn't what I mean at all. Although I do consider it a total parental failure for anyone to allow their child to enter the military. Lets face it, if you have brought your child up well, trained them in what is right and wrong, made sure they have been educated well ... why in the world would they need or want to join the military ??

Anon

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Anon, are you able to produce any statistics supportive of the notion military recruiters are any more prone to "prey on children" in the sense of molestation and abuse than are adults of any other demographic? While I've not chased down the question, I'll hazard a guess military recruiters as a demographic are no more likely to be child abusers than would be the case with any other demographic. I'll note that while the Roman Catholic priesthood got a lot of press for the proclivities and activities of some of their compatriots, and The Church Herself came in for a good bit of (well deserved, IMO) criticism for Her handling of the matter, that several independent studies have found Roman Catholic priests as a demographic actually are statistically less likely to perpetrate child abuse than are members of other authority/responsibility demographics, including such as the clerics of other faiths, those associated with the educational infrastructure both secular and parochial, daycare workers, medical professionals, and just plain adults in general. I would be unsurprised to find military recruiters statistically are less likely to perpetrate child abuse than would be members of many other demographics.

Timber,

I seriously doubt the DOD would allow those type of stats to be published. Do a quick Google, or Yahoo, search with "military recruitment abuse" and tell me what you come up with. Child molestors, sexual abuse, stalking, the list goes on. I would think that with the slightest of information, the last thing a a parent would want near their child would be a military recruiter, quickly followed by a Catholic Priest or indeed, just about any man of the cloth. If you would like even a better thrill, do a search on "military sexual abuse" ... that should straighten your hair if you have any!!

Thomas,

Yea, Teachers can have a bad rep too I guess, but to my knowledge they aren't trained to be predators such as the military is. Just lately , within the last year, the military had to take a day off and give their people a class on how not to come off as such predators. They made a big deal of it!

Anon

0 Replies

post deleted by author

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
I think you guys may be missing the point. Anon is attempting to redefine the term child molester to include anyone who would advise them to join the military. Recruiters, or even parents. Once again the liberal "it takes a village" chant is heard, taking away our ability to parent or even advise our own children.

Anon, you've gone too far.

No CJ,

You are Ad-Libbing again. That isn't what I mean at all. Although I do consider it a total parental failure for anyone to allow their child to enter the military. Lets face it, if you have brought your child up well, trained them in what is right and wrong, made sure they have been educated well ... why in the world would they need or want to join the military ??

Anon

Well, Anon - you're kinda stomping around in personally delicate territory. What are you saying about those A2K'ers that are serving right now, or have served in the military in the past? That they were let down by their parents?

0 Replies

Supremes to Colleges: Military Recruiter Bans Illegal

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know