Harvard Crimson on FAIR v. Rumsfeld:

Scott Johnson posts on an interesting email exchange between GMU Dean Dan Polsby (author of a pro-government amicus brief in FAIR v. Rumsfeld) and a reporter from the Harvard Crimson reporting on the oral argument in FAIR v. Rumsfeld. In the exchange Dean Polsby addresses the argument that arose in oral argument drawing on an amicus brief submitted by several Harvard Law School professors.

The underlying article in the Harvard Crimson suggests that the amicus position may have more "legs" with the Justices than the First Amendment challenge raised by FAIR's lawyer and on which the Circuit Court opinion was grounded.

Wintermute (www):
It seems the free speech right being violated, if there is one, is that of the military, saying they consider (what is it, active?) homosexuals unsuitable for military service. And it seems the faculty and/or administration of the law school is trying to force all prospective employers to agree with their politically correct thinking. Things like this make me feel these people have hijacked the Law School and the University's endowment in this regard, and give me reason to ignore the recurrent appeals for donations.
12.8.2005 12:38pm
NaG (mail):
My interpretation of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is not an assertion that homosexuals may not serve in the armed forces -- only that homosexuals may not serve OPENLY in the armed forces.
12.8.2005 1:23pm
JBurgess (mail) (www):
I think rather that DADT is an assertion that open (i.e. publicly acknowledged as) homosexuals may not serve in the military. The military service is open; the openly gay are not invited, nor retained.
12.8.2005 2:23pm
While I am certainly no fan of the anti-Solomon effort -- indeed, I think all of FAIR's constitutional arguments are losers -- Johnson is completely wrong to say that the Harvard brief was a "rather bizarre argument". The brief argues -- in quite compelling fashion -- that even if the Solomon Amendment requires that military recruiters enjoy "equal access" to students, military recruiters are not entitled to *preferential* access, and that that is what they would receive if they would be exempt from the nondiscrimination policies applicable to all other recruiters.

The brief makes pretty clear that if Solomon's proponents wanted to exempt the military from nondiscrimination policies -- a noble cause, in my opinion -- then they enacted the wrong statute. To conservatives who argue that legislative intent is irrelevant and the text of the statute controls, the Harvard profs' brief is far from "bizarre." Indeed, it's reasonable, and perhaps ultimately persuasive.
12.8.2005 3:19pm