The low end theory or, “Show me the Money”

[Woodwork]

<p>Supreme Court Weighs Military’s Access to Law Schools
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/politics/07scotus.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1133955566-Auj1U0JL4AnP83ErSDWqbQ[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/politics/07scotus.html?th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1133955566-Auj1U0JL4AnP83ErSDWqbQ&lt;/a&gt;
Here’s bettin’ they take the money and walk.</p>

[kluge]

<p>The second argument seems far stronger than the first: “We provide equal treatment to all recruiters, banning both civilian and military recruiters who discriminate.” I wonder why it didn’t get more a part in the discussion, not just because it avoids the constitutional issue but because it makes more sense. </p>

<p>I won’t take your bet. Academics always cave into financial pressure.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Loss of all federal funding is more than just financial pressure. For many schools it’s a disaster.</p>

[itstoomuch]

<p>But do they have the right to ban ANY entity? Suppose a Homosexual organization is recruiting for other homosexuals-Would this be OK? And maybe they allow will heterosexuals apply too!</p>

<p>I always wonder about the 70’s when women were suing for equal consideration and admission to traditional men’s organization. What would happen if I, a male, wish to join a traditionally women’s organization?</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>Fighting on the Wrong Front

But in their opposition to the Solomon Amendment, the universities are not only on shaky legal ground, as confirmed by the skeptical questioning they faced from the justices at oral argument, but intellectually inconsistent.
In the affirmative action cases involving university admissions that the Supreme Court decided in 2003, the universities invoked their educational expertise to defend a definition of applicant merit that disadvantaged whites and Asians; now they argue that the military may not invoke its warfighting expertise to define merit in a way that disadvantages gays.
The universities’ position on government threats to cut off financing to enforce public policies is also inconsistent. A quarter century ago, many universities argued that Bob Jones University’s tax exempt status and access to federal loans should be revoked because its racial policies violated civil rights law. Now the universities argue that their own funding should not be revoked for violating another federal policy.

<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/opinion/09schuck.html?th&emc=th&oref=login[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/opinion/09schuck.html?th&emc=th&oref=login&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;