« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Smash the ROTC ‘Roadblock.’

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  February 24th, 2011 at 11:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This Inside Higher Ed article (H/T: Instapundit) on Columbia’s (and the rest of the Ivy League’s) contempt for the military does its readers a grave disservice: it adamantly refuses to even acknowledge that colleges that ban ROTC from campus are ineligible for federal funding.  This is an annoying, yet ultimately unsurprising omission, given that the only way that anybody can even have a ‘debate’ on this subject is by ignoring the clear will of the American electorate, which is currently involuntarily subsidizing the ‘right’ of academics to remain anti-military bigots.  But there is no debate.  There is no negotiation.  There is merely the law, and whether it is being complied with.

Seriously, let us quote the Solomon Amendment, yet one more time:

(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 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.

It doesn’t apply to financial aid – although it blessed well should – and exceptions are made for schools that are explicitly and historically pacifist; but this is the law, and the fact that it has not been enforced up until now is not actually a valid reason for continuing not to enforce it.  I want to know why my tax money is being spent to support research facilities that hate the military.  Particularly since it’s now clear that the piously-offered reason for their hatred (gays not being allowed to serve openly in the military) was a flat-out, cynical lie.  DADT is over.  Get ROTC back on campus.

Now.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • EagleWatcher

    I finally figured it out. God created conservative to keep liberals from hurting themselves. Leftist Utopians think that liberty comes from the power of their collective consciousness.

    Liberty must be defended by bravery and sometimes by force. We need a strong military.

    De-fund the freeloading elitists.

  • nepanyrush

    I did not know about the Solomon Amendment. But the lack of its enforcement is not surprising since it appears the Executive Branch selectively enforces the laws it wants to. Just look at the current justice department’s refusal to support DOMA or prosecute the Black Panthers’ aggression at the polls, and the administration’s history regarding the oil drilling in the Gulf, using Czars to circumvent Congressional approval, and pretending that Obamacare was even judged as unconstitutional, etc. This separation of powers thing doesn’t seem to be working all that well when the executive branch can do what it wants — seemingly like a third-world dictator.

    The lack of enforcement of the Solomon Amendment is infuriating, but hardly surprising. Is there any legal or congressional means to get it enforced?

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    ,,,get a Republican President n 2013 and nag him or her. Standard drill, in other words.

  • ss396

    Obama isn’t going to enforce or even defend DOMA. Neither he nor Bush has bothered to enforce or defend the Solomon Amendment. I’m not exactly sure how picking and choosing which laws the Executive Department wishes to enforce squares with the Constitution, or with their oath to the Constitution. Nor do I understand how that differs from abrogating the Rule of Law, nor how it is different from the concept of an arbitrary Executive.

    And here I had always thought that those were why we “ordain[ed] and establish[ed] this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  • vamoose

    A group of law schools challenged the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment before the Supreme Court on free speech grounds when faced with the loss of federal funding because they wouldn’t provide equal access to military recruiters. The schools lost. They essentially said that their law school students, an admittedly bright bunch, might get confused and think that it was the school that was saying “join the Army” rather than the Army itself.

    Rather than stand on principle and lose federal money–not just to the law school, but the entire university– the schools allowed military recruiters the same access that other law firms were afford to recruit the law school students.

  • GT350

    where appropriate. I made my calls.

    – Columbia Grad School
    – ROTC member in undergrad.

  • romeg

    “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 -”

    Bob Gates may be a Republican and he may even be a Conservative but he works for an anti-American communist. Worse yet, the AG is a pacifist sop cut from the same cloth.

    I don’t think Gates is capable of taking independent action on this issue. If he is then shame on him for not doing so.

  • spinoneone

    to enforce the law is for Gates to make the determination required by the law itself. I am not sure the President could prevent Gates from doing so since the Secretary of Defense is the officer of the Executive Branch designated as the one to make the determination. If he does/did so, it would appear that all other Departments and the Executive branch agencies would have to abide by his determination and cancel all grants and funds described under section (d)(1) of the law. Man, wouldn’t that be a cat fight?!!

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    Absolutely no doubt, these schools are bigoted and anti-American. They should be hammered to the full extent of the law, and certainly should not benefit from the tax dollars paid by patriotic Americans.

    However. Everybody knows this before they send their kids there, and looking at the graduates of these institutions of “higher learning”, I think it’s fair to say that an overwhelming number of them are every bit as anti-American as their professors and administrators. That being so, is that really the sort of person that we WANT corrupting our military from the inside? I don’t care what their IQ is – Stalin presumably had a decent IQ and I wouldn’t want him in our military either – the more so since we apparently no longer prosecute for treason.

  • schteve

    Colombia and other such schools aren’t violating the Solomon Amendment. There are students enrolled at these institutions who participate in ROTC. I believe Colombia has a total of two ROTC students, both of which I know through a friend.

    These universities do allow ROTC to occur, just not on their campus. Students have to go to a nearby university to take ROTC classes, but military recruiters are of course welcome thanks to the Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights case that vamoose mentioned.

    There is also still justification on Columbia’s part for restricting ROTC to off-campus. Even with DADT repealed, the military does not allow transgendered individuals to serve since it considers this to be a mental disorder. Colombia and its sister schools contain gender identity in their nondiscrimination policies. So until the military lifts its restriction on transgendered individuals or until Colombia removes gender identity from its nondiscrimination policy, exactly the same reasons for opposing ROTC still apply for them. The university will be no more willing to go against its nondiscrimination policy now than it was before.

  • smagar

    These universities do allow ROTC to occur, just not on their campus.

    Even with DADT repealed, the military does not allow transgendered individuals to serve.

    1) Did the goalposts just move?
    2) I eagerly await Columbia refusing to allow ROTC on campus, based on the military not allowing transgendered people to join the service. (I’m especially eager to hear the Commander-in-Chief’s thoughts on the subject.)

    The university will be no more willing to go against its nondiscrimination policy now than it was before.

    We’ll see, now that one House of Congress is all about enforcing the Solomon Amendment.

  • smagar

    based on the title of your comment.

  • smagar
  • smagar

    I know I’m painting with a broad brush in the title. But, given the hostility to America that seems to thrive at the Ivies, I can’t help but wonder if some motivated Ivy League ideologue might join the service, simply to be a mole.

    Years upon years of hearing your teachers and preachers badmouth America has to take a toll.

    I’m also leery of assigning soldiers and their families to faculty positions at these palces. No solider—most of whom are veteran—-should have to work at a place where much of the faculty—the liberal arts faculty, at least—-thinks of him and his family as Untouchables.

    IMO the Ivies need to prove to use that they’re patriotic places. They’ve given us plenty of reasons to wonder.

  • streetwise

    I needed a laugh this evening. Thanks!

  • ocleverone

    Good comment.

  • schteve

    to not focus a lot of attention at Columbia in particular. Joining ROTC isn’t of interest to the student population. Allowing it on campus wouldn’t change that.

  • schteve

    At least argue the merits of true things.

  • schteve

    Columbia isn’t in violation of the Solomon Amendment. What is Congress supposed to do, short of passing a new version of the law that says ROTC classes must be held on those campuses?

  • johnnyd

    “Last month, a top military official offered a glimpse of how the military might look should the new policy take effect: Those serving who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda are no longer welcome.

    Those were the views of Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army?s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters who spoke about ?Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell? before several hundred troops at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. ?Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,? Lt. Gen. Bostick said. ?But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can?t, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you?re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/16/new-gay-army/

  • smagar

    I dare Columbia to ban ROTC from campus, based on the fact that the military does not admit transgendered people.

    Of course, if Columbia desires, it doesn’t need to get any kind of federal support, does it? The Solomon Amendment doesn’t say that a university can’t ban ROTC from campus. It DOES say that Congress can use that ban as justification for cutting off federal fund.

  • smagar
  • smagar

    Remember Nicholas “Million Mogadishus” DeGenova? We do. And now, we have this most recent episode of, ahem, public display of respect toward our military.

    I don’t see the Columbia university leadership getting out, front-and-center, to condemn this. If they are, they’re doing a VERY poor job of getting the word out. Where are the press conferences from Columbia student leaders and its president, condemning what happened? It’s turned into a major public event, and they appear to be ignoring it.

    IMO Columbia University isn’t too interested in making sure the world knows that servicemen and women are respected on their campus.

    If Columbia actually decides to ban ROTC from campus, or harass it once it’s there, expect Congressmen to remember this incident—and the others—-as they decide whether to use the Solomon Amendment to crack down on Columbia.

    Something tells me there will be many in Congress who are willing to crack the whip.

  • schteve

    Columbia isn’t violating the Solomon Amendment because it doesn’t ban ROTC. Quite the opposite, it allows its students to participate in ROTC, as evidenced by there being a few ROTC students at Columbia. Therefore, Congress can’t take any actions against the school.

    Whether those ROTC students can do all their activities on Columbia’s campus or must go to another campus is a different matter, but the Solomon Amendment does not require any school to offer the ROTC classes themselves.

    And some at Columbia are trying to keep ROTC at the status quo due to the military’s policy for transgendered invidivuals. This isn’t a hypothetical situation; it’s actually happening.

  • schteve

    Which is in full compliance with the Solomon Amendment.

    You should focus on getting Congress to pass a new law penalizing Columbia’s conduct if you want something to be done about it.

  • Pingback: The Data Center Journal Brocade and Software Defined Networking