Reader Patrick P. writes to comment on my notes on the Third Circuit decision posted below in "An unsolomonic decision" as follows:

As a recent graduate of the Yale Law School I was present during most of the events that you discussed regarding the Solomon Amendment and JAG recruiters. My strongest memory from the whole incident was the sense of self-righteous hypocrisy that permeated most of the student body and the professors during this period. In essence, almost all of the students at the law school were knowingly and willingly going to work for employers that violated either the spirit or letter of the non-discrimination policy; however, they felt no qualms about openly attacking the JAG recruiters for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because (1) it involved an open policy of discrimination; (2) it involved homosexuals; and (3) it involved the military. A couple of notes:

I am not surprised that 500 out of 594 students signed the petition, however, I would also not be surprised if non-law students were included in that list to pad the numbers.

The black and camouflage were not the most obtrusive aspect of the protest. The petition signing and the button wearing were. The petition table was set up in the cafeteria (and maybe also in the central hallway) and was staffed with law students who would try and corral every passing student to sign the petition.

There was definitely heavy pressure put on students to sign. When I explained I would not sign the petition because I knew I would be interviewing with employers that violate the non-discrimination policy, the students working the table encouraged me to sign the petition anyway because either the military’s actions were worse, more explicit, or to just send them a message.

There were also buttons expressing support for homosexuals in the military that were passed out for students to wear in the law school and while they interviewed with different employers. I know that several of the employers that I interviewed with wore the buttons as well. As a non-button wearing student I was asked several times a day if I wanted to wear one. It was like the Nazi button policies turned on their head.

There was very little opportunity to express alternative opinions at the law school. I did not sign the petition nor did I wear the buttons that were passed out. I was asked several times a day if I would sign the petition or put on a button, and it got quite tiresome to repeatedly say no.

The initial plan was to have protesting students sign up for all of the JAG recruiting interviews spots and then cancel on the day of the interviews so that none that really wanted to work for the military could interview.

There was only one Yale law student that accepted a job with JAG and that student was openly homosexual (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell doesn’t apply to civilian positions which the summer JAG appointments qualify as but regular JAG appoints do not). This student took lots of heat from other students at the law school for this decision; however, his presence was appreciated by the attorneys at JAG (the JAG attorneys generally believed it is only a matter of time before openly homosexual individuals are allowed to work in the military, and it is important to get used to working with such individuals).

I believe the Yale Law School adopted the non-discrimination policy on it own initiative back in the 1960s. It is largely mirrored on Title VII, but does go above and beyond it in certain regards. For example, it includes veteran’s status as a prohibited category of discrimination.

What is interesting/hypocritical about the JAG protests is that the military would violate the non-discrimination policy even without “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” At the least, the military also discriminates based on veteran’s status, handicapped status, and gender. This was pointed out in a public “town hall meeting,” and the administration response was jumbled at best. This should have been a topic for thought and reflection, but it wasn’t. In response to this question, [then-law school dean] Anthony Kronman expressed something along the lines of: it there is a rational/necessary basis for the discrimination (e.g., handicapped status) then it is ok. This is not a part of the non-discrimination policy as it is written.

What is also interesting is that the Yale Law School allows various federal and state government entities to participate in the interview process. Virtually all of those entities are required by law (whether state or federal) to give a preference to job applicants who are veterans. Regardless of the merits of these laws, they require the government employers to explicitly violate the non-discrimination policy.

None at the Yale Law School (other than myself) seemed to be bothered by this blatant violation of our “sacred” non-discrimination policy. When asked about this at the “town hall meeting” Anthony Kronman said that he wasn’t aware of these laws (which I find extremely surprising for a lawyer, and especially a Dean of a law school with so many professors who used to work for the government). Anthony Kronman also expressed some vague principle that attempting to help a disadvantaged group by giving them preferences was
not really discrimination. Once again, not a part of the law school’s non-discrimination policy.

In addition, most of the private law firms that participate in the interview process have policies or structures that implicitly (or, unusually, explicitly)discriminate against women or minorities. Namely, these groups are disproportionately forced out of the firms at the associate level and thereby fail to reach partner in the same proportion that they are hired. With women this usually occurs when they have children. This information is not really a big secret, in fact, the Yale Law School has hosted several programs that discuss the structural discrimination problems in law firms.

Since all of the government and private employers who participate in the interview process sign a form affirming that they comply with the Law School’s non-discrimination policy, they are assumed to be in compliance, even if the law school has explicit knowledge to the contrary (i.e. the veteran’s preference laws, or by the employer information seats required to be completed to participate).

Essentially, the law school has its own version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The only employer who did not sign the form claiming they were in compliance were the JAG recruiters. Based on my discussions with the Career Development Office and Anthony Kronman, it appears that had the JAG recruiters signed the form they would have been allowed to participate; however, at that point a student group would probably have protested their presence. The moral of the story is that there is a broad policy in place that is not enforced unless someone does not like a particular employer (which would seem to be an “equal protection” violation).

Finally, it appears that the university as a whole put pressure on the law school to admit the JAG recruiters. The law school gets very little if any federal funding, while the general university, especially the sciences, gets millions of dollars.

Anthony Kronman explained his decision to allow the JAG recruiters to participate as being coerced by government’s attempted withdrawal of funds from vital research programs that help children among other groups, and he couldn’t hurt the children. It was all very melodramatic.

Sorry for the long email, hope you find the information helpful.

Indeed we do.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/mt/mt-diespammers.cgi/8823

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Unsolomonic...and unfair:

» Banning Military Recruiters from Secure Liberty
The Solomon Amendment became law in 1995 (note to liberals: under Clinton). It provides that certain federal agencies are prohibited from providing federal funds or contracts to universities that prevent access to campus by military recruiters, which ... [Read More]

Tracked on November 30, 2004 01:57 PM

» Expressive Disassociation from Discriminations.us
As you all know by now, the Third Circuit's recently decided that the Solomon Amendment (allowing the Dept. of Defense to withhold funds from institutions that refuse to allow its recruiters on campus) is unconstitutional because it violates the Yale... [Read More]

Tracked on December 1, 2004 01:32 PM

» Expressive Disassociation from Discriminations.us
As you all know by now, the Third Circuit recently decided that the Solomon Amendment (allowing the Dept. of Defense to withhold funds from institutions that refuse to allow its recruiters on campus) is unconstitutional because it violates the Yale... [Read More]

Tracked on December 1, 2004 01:34 PM