Take that, Yale School of Law....

[K Frame]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that universities that get federal funds must allow military recruiters on campus, even if their law schools oppose the Pentagon's policy prohibiting openly gays and lesbians from serving.

The high court upheld as constitutional a federal law dating back to 1994 that allows the government to withhold money from universities that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses given to other employers.

[mtnbkr]

Now we'll see just how many schools stand by their principles and how many continue to suck at the ol' govt teat; complaining the entire time about the injustice of it all.

Chris

[K Frame]

I hear a lot of slurping...

[Dannyboy]

I hear a lot of slurping...

Yup.

[Guest]

On the other hand this is one short step to having government approved curriculum taught in any school that takes federal money. You do realize that schools can go private no problem, but they will cost 5 times more than they did. All the federal money that goes to schools is really just providing a discount for their students, so guess who is actually going to be footing the bill.

[Guest]

Hillsdale College did it years ago and does pretty well. The school is expensive but when you graduate from there, it means something, and they offer a lot of scholarships.

[Guest]

http://www.libertymatters.org/libertymattersjournal/50.htm

(Um, you have to ignore the fact that George Roche resigned in shame after sleeping with his daughter in law for 20 years, which only became known after she was found dead of a gun shot wound on the grounds of the college. But, it's Hillsdale, and those kinds of things happen here.)

[Jamisjockey]

On the other hand this is one short step to having government approved curriculum taught in any school that takes federal money. You do realize that schools can go private no problem, but they will cost 5 times more than they did. All the federal money that goes to schools is really just providing a discount for their students, so guess who is actually going to be footing the bill.

But see, here's the fallacy of that logic:
We pay federal and state taxes.  So, in reality, we're paying for it regardless.  I say, cut Federal taxes and cut federal money from schools.  School money should only come from local municipalities.

[K Frame]

"On the other hand this is one short step to having government approved curriculum..."

As opposed to having a private school where the curriculum teaches (insert whatever you hate/fear most here).

Not much difference, eh?

[Guest]

"On the other hand this is one short step to having government approved curriculum..."

As opposed to having a private school where the curriculum teaches (insert whatever you hate/fear most here).

Not much difference, eh?

Uh yeah its a pretty big difference since you can choose to attend the specific school that teaches what you want to learn. With state mandated curriculum all you get is one option.

[Antibubba]

Mike Irwin wrote:

I hear a lot of slurping...

Do you hear me spitting a mouthful of pizza on my keyboard?

[K Frame]

"Uh yeah its a pretty big difference since you can choose to attend the specific school that teaches what you want to learn. With state mandated curriculum all you get is one option."

OK, I'm confused....

This Supreme Court decision mandates that all schools will now teach a "state approved curriculum".... how?

This Supreme Court decision will wipe out PRIVATE institutions... how?

This Supreme Court decision, on whether or not MILITARY RECUITERS (note that military recruiting 101 is not taught at any school I'm familiar with) can come onto campuses means a state approved cirriculum.... how?

Earth to c_yeager...

One does NOT equal another.

This is not a case of the state being allowed to mandate curriculum, and I fail to see how anyone can make that claim with either a straight face or a modicum of rationality.

Institutions of higher learning have been receiving money from the Federal government for well over 100 years, and we still don't have a state approved curriculum.

[Guest]

This Supreme Court decision mandates that all schools will now teach a "state approved curriculum".... how?

This Supreme Court decision will wipe out PRIVATE institutions... how?

This Supreme Court decision, on whether or not MILITARY RECUITERS (note that military recruiting 101 is not taught at any school I'm familiar with) can come onto campuses means a state approved cirriculum.... how?

Earth to c_yeager...

One does NOT equal another.

Yeah no kidding, why dont you try reading the very first sentance of the post you are replying to. here it is again to save you some time:

On the other hand this is one short step to having government approved curriculum taught in any school that takes federal money.

I notice that you didnt bother to defend your own post in which you seem to have no problem with state-mandated lesson plans in schools.

[mtnbkr]

According to the NPR report I heard last night, all this ruling does is giving Military recruiters the same logistical access afforded to Corporate recruiters.  Apparently, Yale was doing things such as not informing students of their presence, etc,  something they do for Corporate recruiters.  The SC stated that Yale would be completely within their rights to put up posters, hold protests, etc when the Military was there, but they had to provide the same level of logistical access.  

Chris

[K Frame]

You're crying and yelling about it being a short step to towards a government approved curriculum.

You keep claiming that, yet you have FAILED to establish how this ruling does that.

The *POOF! AND A MIRACLE HAPPENS AND EVIL INCARNATE TAKES OVER TO EDUCATE AMERICA'S YOUTH!* approach is not a valid one.


These are YOUR words, which prompted my second reply -- "Uh yeah its a pretty big difference since you can choose to attend the specific school that teaches what you want to learn. With state mandated curriculum all you get is one option."

Sentence 1 is clear. In fact, that situation applies today. You can simply choose to attend a private university if you don't like what the publically funded ones teach. That's a no brainer, and it's been that way since 1636 when Harvard was established as the first institution of higher learning in this country.

Sentence 2, however, seems to be the leap of faith. It implies that this Supreme Court ruling is going to crush the private, non-federally funded university system and replace it with one where the state mandates a uniform curriculum.

I've read both of your posts thoroughly. Several times, in fact.

And I still fail to see how you've leapt to the conclusion that this Supreme Court ruling:

* Lead to schools teaching a "state approved curriculum".... how?

* Will wipe out PRIVATE institutions... how?

* On whether or not MILITARY RECUITERS (note that military recruiting 101 is not taught at any school I'm familiar with) can come onto campuses means a state approved cirriculum.... how?

You've raised the spectre of this empowering an all-encompassing system of drone making fueled by the Federal government, yet you've failed to explain how this ruling will do this.

Please do so.

[The Rabbi]

I agree with Mike Irwin.

I will mention that the WSJ reported the ruling actually says that even if institutions do not take Federal money Congress could still pass a law mandating that they allow recruiters on campus.
I personally don't have a problem with that.

[mtnbkr]

I will mention that the WSJ reported the ruling actually says that even if institutions do not take Federal money Congress could still pass a law mandating that they allow recruiters on campus.
I personally don't have a problem with that.

I do.  If an institution does not take federal money, they should have complete control over who is allowed to come onto their campus and for what reasons.

Chris

[K Frame]

"If an institution does not take federal money, they should have complete control over who is allowed to come onto their campus and for what reasons."


Theoretically, I agree, but...

What if the private university wants to be all white? All black? All asian?

[mtnbkr]

Theoretically, I agree, but...

What if the private university wants to be all white? All black? All asian?

Don't forget the various religions, sexual orientations, etc...

If they are completely and totally funded by private donations and students' tuitions, more power to them.  I wouldn't attend such a school, nor would my children attend if I paid any of their tuition and fees, but I respect their right to do with their property as they see fit.

Chris

[doczinn]

You can simply choose to attend a private university if you don't like what the publically funded ones teach. That's a no brainer, and it's been that way since 1636 when Harvard was established as the first institution of higher learning in this country.

The fact is that almost all private universities accept money from the government. While the government has not yet tried to tie that funding to curriculum requirements, it's not much of a stretch.

What if the private university wants to be all white? All black? All asian?

THEN LET THEM.

[The Rabbi]

I will mention that the WSJ reported the ruling actually says that even if institutions do not take Federal money Congress could still pass a law mandating that they allow recruiters on campus.
I personally don't have a problem with that.

I do.  If an institution does not take federal money, they should have complete control over who is allowed to come onto their campus and for what reasons.

Chris

The reasoning was that the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies, and this is included in that power.  Thus it is not carte blanche for Congress to dictate policies to universities across the board, only in this limited instance.

[K Frame]

"The fact is that almost all private universities accept money from the government."

Almost all does not equal all.


"While the government has not yet tried to tie that funding to curriculum requirements, it's not much of a stretch."

Please see my note about the government doling out money to universities. It's been done for well over 100 years. Ever hear of the land grant colleges?

We keep hearing this "it's not much of a stretch" claim, yet there's no real logic or reasoning behind it, but that somehow this Supreme Court ruling is a mandate for the government to do exactly that.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine that aliens might come down and put you on the probulator, either.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine that the Soviet Union might spring back into existence and the evil commies say "HA! WE FOOLED YOU!"

I'm still waiting for an explanation of just how this Supreme Court ruling gives the government carte blanche to determine curricula.

I have a funny feeling that we're all going to be waiting a long time for that.

"THEN LET THEM."

Laundry back from the kkkleaners?

[doczinn]

So you first insinuate that it's virtually impossible to think that government, having paid the piper, might want to call the tune.

Then you throw out some really asinine scenarios to try to compare them to the previous assertion.

Then you accuse me of being racist for believing that people have a right to associate or refrain from associating with whomever they choose.

You're just a paragon of intellectual thought today, aren't you?

[The Rabbi]

So you first insinuate that it's virtually impossible to think that government, having paid the piper, might want to call the tune.

I thought it had to do with Yale Law School, not the college band???

[cordex]

I'm not bothered by this decision.  Federal recruiters should have access to colleges that accept federal money.

I am curious as to why Mike would want the government to interfere with a school that took no public money that chose to go all black or all asian or all white or all Catholic or all female or all left-handed, Tazmanian, French speaking, handicapped, redheads.

Isn't that something that a college should be allowed to do, assuming they do not accept tax money?