A threat to gay equality
QUESTIONS FROM the justices this week made it clear that the Supreme Court will side with military recruiters by forcing universities to forfeit federal aid if they restrict recruiting because of the Pentagon's policies on gays. The court evidently believes that, while universities might have a First Amendment right not to comply with an arm of government that violates the universities' policies against discrimination, Congress also has a right to retaliate by denying the colleges billions of dollars in federal support.
In the past, the federal government has threatened to withhold aid or tax-exempt status to compel institutions to stop discriminating against, for instance, blacks or women's athletic programs. Members of Congress opposed to discrimination in all its forms should make sure this blunt but effective weapon is never again used to limit the rights of any Americans.
Just how blunt is spelled out in an amicus brief by seven universities, including Yale and Harvard, in which they explain how crucial federal funding is to modern research universities and what a threat its denial presents to academic freedom, a principle upheld by the Supreme Court in other cases. Some law schools provide adequate access to military recruiters while withholding certain services of their career development offices in order to make clear their opposition to the antigay position of the services. This practice spurred Congress to toughen its law by requiring that the military get equal services, making it all the clearer that Congress wants not just to ensure the military access to the law students but to stop universities from using recruitment procedures to express their opposition to the services' antigay prejudice. This is a direct attack on academic freedom.
Under the ''don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays and lesbians can serve, but those who make their orientation known face discharge. Especially at a time when the Army needs all the volunteers it can get, the military should do what so many families, workplaces, and schools have done -- as well as the militaries of many of our allies -- accept homosexuals and get on with it. At the same time, the military should reaffirm its commitment to enforcing rules against sexual misconduct of any kind.
A half-century ago, the services led the country in racial integration. The transition was not always smooth, but the services made it evident that commanders who were not effective in making integration work faced dim chances of promotion. Using this kind of leadership to include gays in the ranks should be easier with each passing year as the services recruit from a generation that is less homophobic than the one before.
If the Supreme Court is unwilling to declare the antigay policy itself a violation of basic rights, it should at least not let Congress muzzle academia when it tries to say so.
