Young America's Foundation

Join Our Email List

  • New Guard Inner
  • Stanford's Anti-Military Crusade

    1/12/2010 11:16:11 AM Posted by Patrick Coyle

    Military Recruiters Protested on CampusSadly, some of America's most prestigious institutions still ban ROTC and military recruiters from their campuses. Yale, Harvard, Columbia and Emory University are but a few of the schools that don't give young people the opportunity to join ROTC and meet with military recruiters.

    Since 1969, Stanford has banned ROTC because the classes that comprised the ROTC curriculum supposedly did not meet Stanford’s baseline academic standards.

    Stanford's bias against the military continues to this day. Just last week, Dr. George Fisher of Stanford Law School sent the following email (signed by other faculty members) to every law school student encouraging them to not interview with a recruiter from the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps. This email is lengthy, but it does detail how Stanford has fought against the military at every step. Even after the Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold the Solomon amendment which Young America's Foundation spearheaded, Stanford still resists.

    More to come tomorrow.

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: George F
    Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:51 AM
    Subject: [law-2012] JAG Corps recruiting on campus
    To: 2009 2010 2011 list names at
    Cc: faculty at

    Dear SLS Students:

          You just received a message from Career Services offering you the chance to meet with a recruiter from the U.S. Air Force JAG Corps during On-Campus Interviewing this month. We hope you will take a moment to read this note before signing up for an interview.

          Like all components of the armed forces, the JAG Corps of the various services officially discriminate against applicants who say they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual or whose homosexual or bisexual conduct becomes known. This hiring restriction flatly violates the law school's nondiscrimination policy: "Stanford Law School makes its facilities and services open only to employers who do not discriminate on the basis of age, religion, disability, ethnic background, national origin, gender, race, sexual orientation, or veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by applicable law." As one aspect of this policy, the law school opens the facilities and services of the Office of Career Services only to those employers who ban discrimination on these grounds. Our nondiscrimination policy has extended to sexual orientation for at least twenty years; it was among the first at any law school to do so.

           For decades, therefore, the law school has refused to host or assist military recruiters on campus. Our refusal has expressed our pledge that within these walls, we will make no distinction among you in extending any benefit or service except according to merit or need. We regard these practices of even handedness and meritocratic distinction as fundamental educational principles.

      Late in 1994 Congress enacted the Solomon Amendment, which threatened to cut certain federal funding to schools that "effectively prevent[ed]" military recruiting on campus. A regulation originally issued by the Department of Defense interpreted the law to mean that when one part of a university, such as its law school, barred military recruiters, only that part would lose its federal funds. As long as this regulation remained in effect, the law school never assisted military recruiters on campus. In 1997 the Department of Defense began to threaten action against Stanford Law School. When the faculty met to discuss the matter, Dean Paul Brest told us that we stood to lose half a million dollars a year if the Department of Defense followed through on its threat to cut funding. The faculty overwhelmingly favored keeping our nondiscrimination policy in force even at the risk of those funds.

        In January 2000, however, the Department of Defense rewrote its regulations to provide that when any part of a university prevents military recruiting, the entire university would lose all funding from the Departments of Defense, Labor, Education, Transportation, and Health and Human Services. At Stanford these funds total several hundred million dollars a year. The present regulations mean that enforcing the law school's policy against JAG Corps recruiters could devastate many unrelated and valuable programs across the Stanford campus.
            In response to the 2000 amendment, several faculty members and students began preparing a lawsuit against the Department of Defense to enjoin enforcement of the Solomon Amendment against the law school. Our brief argued that the Solomon Amendment violated the faculty's academic freedom and the law school's rights of free speech and free association. Because the law school cannot bring suit in its own name, Dean Kathleen Sullivan presented this brief to University officials and asked that the University file suit to defend the law school's antidiscrimination policy. After the University declined, we circulated our brief around the country in hopes that another school's administration might take up the banner and launch suit. None did.

    In 2003, therefore, dozens of law schools and law faculties joined in creating FAIR, the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights. FAIR brought suit against the Department of Defense, largely echoing the claims made in our faculty's earlier brief. The Stanford law faculty voted to join FAIR as the United Faculty of Stanford Law School and voted to make our membership publicly known. Among top law schools, Georgetown, NYU, and Stanford were the sole public members of FAIR.

            In late November 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in FAIR's favor and directed the lower court to enjoin enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. The Third Circuit held that the Solomon Amendment violated law schools' rights of expressive association and against compelled speech. But in 2006, in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed, restoring the Solomon Amendment to force.

            Still, JAG Corps recruiters have come to campus only rarely. Both before and after the FAIR decision, Department of Defense regulations specifically permitted educational institutions to enforce evenhanded student-interest policies that limited recruitment access to those employers in whom enough students expressed interest. Stanford Law School has had such a policy in place for over a decade. It provides that when a new employer or one who does not have an established recruiting history here seeks to take part in the law school's on-campus interview program, the Office of Career Services must determine if there is sufficient student interest before scheduling the employer for interviews. The policy has helped OCS fairly allocate scarce interview space. It also has saved employers, including military recruiters, the time and money wasted by coming here when few students or none wish to meet with them. In most past years too few students claimed an interest in seeing military recruiters to qualify them for participation in our on-campus interview program.

      Recently, however, the Department of Defense acted to eliminate its regulatory approval of student-interest policies. Despite Stanford Law School's official opposition to the proposed regulatory change, authored by Professor Sullivan for Dean Kramer, the Department promulgated new regulations that interpret the Solomon Amendment to compel "the same access to campus and students provided by the school to any other nonmilitary recruiters or employers receiving the most favorable access." It appears that the law school therefore no longer may apply its student-interest policy to military recruiters.

         In FAIR the Supreme Court recognized the right of law schools "to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds." FAIR, 547 U.S. at 60. Indeed the Association of American Law Schools mandates that schools visited by military recruiters counteract the harmful effects of granting such access by "provid[ing] 'amelioration' in a form that . . . expresses publicly the law school's disapproval of the discrimination against gays and lesbians by the military . . . ." (Memo 97-46.)

            The individual faculty members who have signed this letter join in an appeal rooted in the principles of equality and meritocratic treatment that impel the law school's nondiscrimination policy. We ask those of you who wish to work for the military to contact JAG Corps recruiters directly and to arrange off-campus interviews rather than meeting with them during OCI. By meeting with military recruiters off campus, you will declare your support for the law school's nondiscrimination policy and your respect for those of your colleagues whose expression of sexual orientation disqualifies them for military service.

           JAG Corps service is noble work. We are enormously proud of those graduates who go on to serve in the military. But we regard nondiscrimination as a fundamental educational principle. SLS has pledged to make no distinction among you in the benefits or services we provide except according to merit or need. Because we believe the military's policy of overt discrimination undermines this educational principle, we hope those of you who seek military service will arrange to meet military recruiters off campus.

      Thank you.

    Janet Alexander
    Barbara Babcock
    Joe Bankman
    Richard Banks
    Juliet Brodie
    Meg Caldwell
    Joshua Cohen
    Richard Craswell
    Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar
    Robert Daines
    David Engstrom
    Nora Freeman Engstrom
    George Fisher

    Jeffrey Fisher
    Richard Ford
    Marc Franklin
    Barbara Fried
    Lawrence Friedman
    Paul Goldstein
    William Gould
    Hank Greely
    Tom Grey
    Daniel Ho
    Pam Karlan
    Mark Kelman
    Amalia Kessler
    Michael Klausner
    Bill Koski
    Larry Kramer
    Mark Lemley
    Larry Marshall
    Jenny Martinez
    John Merryman
    David Mills
    Alison Morantz
    Bob Rabin
    Deborah Rhode
    Jane Schacter
    Daniel Siciliano
    Deborah Sivas
    Norman Spaulding
    Jayashri Srikantiah
    Helen Stacy
    Alan Sykes
    Michael Wald
    Michael Wara
    Allen Weiner
    Bob Weisberg

    • Readers' Comments

    • Pretty clear that one way to get yourself known at Stanford Law and amongst Career Services is go to ahead and schedule your interview on campus, thru OCI. Known, and never to be forgotten.
      Posted by Joe Giles on 01/12/2010
    • Regarding the Jan. 6, 2010 email from George F to the students of Stanford Law School. The faculty at Stanford are a bunch of hypocrites. If there is no student interest as they claim on military recruiters coming on campus their letter to the students is unnecessary. This is another example of politically correct harassment of anyone who disagrees with their point of view. Anyone who shows up for an interview is a traitor to their cause. Law students are adults with at least one college degree already. They should be free to make their own career decisions. They should not have to go off campus to interview. If the faculty and administration does not like the Solomon Amendment then they should do two things: Notify the Dept of of Defense that Stanford is barring all military recruiters and in doing so agrees to forfeit all federal funding aper the Solomon Amendment. Secondly, actively lobby Congress to repeal Solomon so colleges can bar recruiters and still get federal funding. By the way, the military by law also discriminates against those with disabilities and one age. Even if the law barring gays from serving in the military is changed, the military would still be violating most colleges' aanti-discrimination policies. Thus they would still be unwelcome by schools like Stanford. Commander Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC, Navy (Retired), Alexandria, VA
      Posted by Commander Wayne L. Johnson, JAGC, Navy (Retired) on 01/13/2010
    • dzq5py Thanks a lot for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Want more.
      Posted by 77835 on 09/05/2013
    • XvHl1T I truly appreciate this article post. Cool.
      Posted by 712053 on 09/12/2013
    • FZgpec Thank you ever so for you article. Will read on...
      Posted by 4587 on 09/24/2013
    • ZqRrAv Say, you got a nice blog article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
      Posted by 88293 on 10/15/2013
    • 1rOH52 Very informative post.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
      Posted by 20401 on 10/15/2013
    • xDVC5G Muchos Gracias for your article.Much thanks again. Cool.
      Posted by 7987 on 10/26/2013
    • ARXxmL Really informative blog.Thanks Again. Will read on...
      Posted by 6506 on 11/01/2013
    • vedJv2 Thanks for sharing, this is a fantastic post.Really thank you! Great.
      Posted by 16832 on 12/15/2013
    • RjjfTu I think this is a real great blog.Really thank you!
      Posted by 22031 on 01/08/2014
    • Posted by on 01/08/2014
    • 6J3ps0 I really enjoy the article.Really thank you! Want more.
      Posted by 6253 on 01/16/2014
    • blFGQj Say, you got a nice blog.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.
      Posted by 733338 on 02/28/2014
    • WTmMDU Enjoyed every bit of your article post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.
      Posted by 94801 on 03/22/2014
    • 8oOLUc Really informative article post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on...
      Posted by 94719 on 04/01/2014
    • Un6vLM I really liked your blog article.Much thanks again. Want more.
      Posted by 11660 on 05/11/2014
    • g0ZfEJ Very good post.Much thanks again. Cool.
      Posted by 408874 on 06/04/2014
    • IKLzlq Awesome blog article.Much thanks again. Really Cool.
      Posted by 299105 on 06/17/2014
    • p2joPn Im grateful for the article.Much thanks again. Awesome.
      Posted by 4748 on 07/04/2014
    • yXbfZQ I really enjoy the article.Thanks Again. Will read on...
      Posted by 6750 on 07/17/2014
    • r2hWEh I think this is a real great blog article.Thanks Again. Want more.
      Posted by 1537 on 07/18/2014
    • Thanks for the post.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
      Posted by 38620 on 07/24/2014
    • I am so grateful for your blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.
      Posted by 61915 on 07/24/2014
    • This is one awesome blog.Thanks Again. Fantastic.
      Posted by 365046 on 07/24/2014
    • Enjoyed every bit of your post.Much thanks again. Will read on...
      Posted by 48443 on 07/24/2014
    • Very good blog article.Much thanks again. Want more.
      Posted by 1234 on 07/24/2014
    • Great, thanks for sharing this blog.Much thanks again. Will read on...
      Posted by 793704 on 07/24/2014
    • Thank you ever so for you post.Thanks Again. Awesome.
      Posted by 27394 on 07/24/2014
    • Really informative post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
      Posted by 339862 on 07/24/2014
    • Im thankful for the post.
      Posted by 2394 on 07/24/2014
    • I really enjoy the blog. Great.
      Posted by 5019 on 07/24/2014
    • Say, you got a nice blog.Much thanks again. Keep writing.
      Posted by 31582 on 07/24/2014
    • Thank you for your article post.Much thanks again. Keep writing.
      Posted by 52894 on 07/24/2014
    • Thanks for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
      Posted by 50391 on 07/24/2014
    • I really like and appreciate your blog article.Thanks Again.
      Posted by 50780 on 07/24/2014
    • I appreciate you sharing this blog.
      Posted by 59747 on 07/24/2014
    • Say, you got a nice blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Fantastic.
      Posted by 7947 on 07/24/2014
    Leave a comment
Copyright 2013 Young America's Foundation | 110 Elden Street, Herndon, VA 20170 | Ph. 1.800.USA.1776 | Fax 703.318.9122 | |