The Wisdom of Solomon

I don't usually spend time quoting George Will, but this seemed too good to pass up. Will decided to write about the Solomon Amendment, a federal law that essentially requires institutions of higher learning that accept federal money to allow access to military recruiters on the same grounds as other would-be employers. The schools and their faculties have essentially decided that they should be allowed to accept federal money, but they don't have to comply with the requirements the government places on these efforts, because the schools believe the military discrtiminates against homosexuals with its "don't ask, don't tell policy." The schools are welcome to protest the policy, but they don't want to pay any price for it...

Federal assistance to institutions of higher education was about $35 billion last year, so the schools flinch from the price tag on their gay rights principles, which in this case dovetail neatly with their anti-military prejudices. The schools cite the principle that government cannot condition receipt of a government benefit on the loss of a constitutional right. The government replies that Congress frequently makes the receipt of federal funds conditional on the recipient's doing certain things to further a legitimate government interest, such as recruiting.

And the government denies that the law on recruiters' access abridges schools' rights of speech and association. The schools' lawyer argued that it does because the "forced hosting" of recruiters amounts to a "crisis of conscience" over compelled and subsidized speech. The schools say they are compelled to communicate a message of support for the military's policy regarding gays and to subsidize the military's message of disapproval of gays. But last week Chief Justice John Roberts said that "nobody" infers an academic institution's support for the views and policies of every employer allowed to recruit on campus.

...During oral arguments last week, the schools had many occasions to wince. Regarding the schools' theory that any conduct can be imbued with "communicative force," Justice Antonin Scalia wondered whether the schools might also justify banning military recruiters during a war the faculty disapproved of, because allowing the recruiters would be tantamount to the schools' endorsing the war.

As Will indicates, there's a certain level of petulance to the actions of these schools. Essentaiily, they want funding, but they don't want to take on any responsibilities attached to the receipt of the funds. Instapundit has a great thought...

Somehow it makes me think of Dan Akroyd in Ghostbusters:

Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

Too many people in academia don't seem to realize that the money has to come from somewhere. And you hear people talk about how academia needs to adopt an "adversarial stance" toward the larger culture, without thinking much about why the larger culture would want to pay for that.

That's about right. Look, a law school, including my alma mater, is free to a stand against prejudice if they see it. But they also need to accept the consequences that go along with such a stand. It's as if they're telling the federal government, "You're horrible, horrible bigots! Now give us your money and be gone... until it's time to send us another check, of course."

That's not how it should work. And here's hoping the Supreme Court agrees with Congress.