Military Recruiting Upheld

The Supreme Court ruled on March 6 that the federal government can cut off funding to universities that limit or ban military recruiting on...

The Supreme Court ruled on March 6 that the federal government can cut off funding to universities that limit or ban military recruiting on their campuses. The 8-0 opinion (Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. did not participate) upheld the Solomon Amendment—Congress’s response to law schools’ decision to restrict recruiting because military limits on service by homosexuals (the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy) conflict with the schools’ nondiscrimination policies. Harvard receives about $500 million in federal research funding annually.

A coalition of law schools filed suit, alleging that the amendment violated their First Amendment rights of free speech and association, and in late 2004 secured a favorable ruling in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (Harvard had declined to join the legal challenge to the law; see “Recruiting Redux,” July-August 2005, page 60.) The Defense Department appealed, and the case was argued before the Supreme Court last December.

In its ruling, the court rejected both the First Amendment claim and an argument in an amicus brief prepared by many Harvard Law School (HLS) faculty members, who maintained that it should be permissible to exclude all employers (including the military) who do not maintain a nondiscrimination policy.

In a note on March 7, HLS dean Elena Kagan expressed disappointment in the decision, while noting that the school “will continue to provide Career Services assistance to the military, as [it] does to non-discriminating employers. At the same time, I hope that many members of the [HLS] community will accept the court’s invitation to express their views clearly and forcefully regarding the military’s discriminatory employment policy,” which she called “profoundly wrong—both unwise and unjust.”

Most popular

Why Men Are Falling Behind in Education, Employment, and Health

Can new approaches to education address a growing gender gap?

The 1884 Cannibalism-at-Sea Case That Still Has Harvard Talking

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens changed the course of legal history. Here’s why it’s been fodder for countless classroom debates.

What Trump Means for John Roberts’s Legacy

Executive power is on the docket at the Supreme Court.

Explore More From Current Issue

Historic church steeple framed by bare tree branches against a clear sky.

Harvard’s Financial Challenges Lead to Difficult Choices

The University faces the consequences of the Trump administration—and its own bureaucracy

Four young people sitting around a table playing a card game, with a chalkboard in the background.

On Weekends, These Harvard Math Professors Teach the Smaller Set

At Cambridge Math Circle, faculty and alumni share puzzles, riddles, and joy.

A stylized illustration of red coral branching from a gray base, resembling a fantastical entity.

This TikTok Artist Combines Monsters and Mental Heath

Ava Jinying Salzman’s artwork helps people process difficult feelings.