November 23, 2007

Marx issues statement on Solomon Amendment

Ten days ago, the College released a statement by President Marx on Amherst’s policy regarding military recruiters on campus. This issue had been a fairly hot topic amongst most institutions of higher education in the last two years until a recent Supreme Court ruling essentially resolved the debate.

The short story: Some colleges and universities had been refusing to allow military recruiters on campus in protest of the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” which essentially forbids homosexuals from serving in our armed forces. In particular, some law schools had been doing the same when military recruiters came looking for new JAG lawyers by refusing to allow the interviews to take place on campus property. The government fought back by threatening to enforce a law know as the Solomon Amendment, which would allow the government to pull all financial support from any school that barred military recruiters. In dealing with the law schools, the amendment is a powerful remedy. Not only can the government pull funding from the law school, but it can also pull funding from the entire university to which the law school belongs. For many universities, the penalties (which I believe also include fines) would be in the 8 figure range, if not higher. Litigation ensued regarding the constitutionality of the law. In the FAIR v. Rumsfeld decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Government. I’ve skipped some details, but that’s the general setup.

That brings us to President Marx’s statement; you can find the whole thing here.

This is the key paragraph:

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must open their campuses without restrictions to military recruiters if the schools wish to receive federal funding—funding that helps support the first-class scholarship and research taking place at Amherst every day. As a result, we have opened Amherst to military recruiters without precondition. We will also sign formal agreements with the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) at UMass to ensure that our students may participate in its programs. We do not wish to hold the college apart from the armed forces, but rather to honor those who defend our nation.

Additionally, Marx announced he would continue the debate regarding the Solomon Amendment via programming in February: Marx will convene a panel of recent alumni who have served or are currently serving in the military. Marx also announced that the college would host General Wesley Clark and Northwestern University military sociologist Charles Moskos for a colloquium debate on reinstituting the draft.

I think that this is the right path for the college to follow, for a number of reasons. Even though I do not believe that the military should bar homosexuals from serving in our armed forces, I do believe that the military deserves the same access to schools receiving federal funding that other employers receive; I suspect that many who read this will disagree with that position and we certainly welcome all comments and opinions on this issue.

Moreover, I like the College’s stated position because it also implicitly reaffirms something that I think we all believe: Amherst students are intelligent enough to engage the issues and make their own choices when it comes to their respective career paths; the College should not interfere with that process.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not highlight an article in the November 7 edition of the Amherst Student which adds a bizarre twist to this story (the article is only available via print copy as of this writing). Student Publisher Suvayu Pant ‘09 reported on the November faculty meeting in and article entitled “Faculty Backs Enviro-Studies.” Despite the title, the article was a summary of the meeting, which covered a number of topics. Pant’s article contained the following paragraph (to which I have added emphasis):

[ …] Marx told the faculty that the College will continue its policies on on-campus military recruitment, even after the Supreme Court ruled against policies like the one the College currently holds. In 1987, the faculty decided that military recruitment officers would be welcome on campus, but must explain their “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” on homosexuality. However this policy infringes on a Supreme Court ruling mandating that institutions of higher education be more open to military recruitment. This breech of law could cost the College $600 million in fines. But Marx said the College’s values dictate that it insist military recruiters explain their don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.[ …] Nonetheless, Marx said the College should not discriminate against students interested in joining the military.

It does not take more than a cursory glance at the above paragraph to notice a significantly different tone from the official college statement. I have many questions about what is reported above (is $600 million really the College’s exposure here?), but assuming everything that Pant reported was accurate and putting aside the moral arguments, was the College seriously considering risking a $600 million dollar penalty? While I have no reason to question whether Pant accurately reported the content of the meeting, the notion that the College would even consider taking such a massive penalty, in this case a fine roughly equal to half the current value of the endowment, is absurd. Did Pant’s article contain some sloppy reporting, or did Tony Marx radically change his position in the span of one week?

Comments on any or all of the above are welcome.

UPDATE 11/24: The Student has issued a correction regarding Suvayu Pant’s article. I discuss that correction here.

Dave Nardolillo '98 | November 23, 2007 01:09 PM | Administration | History | Student Life

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.amerst.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/282