Take that, Yale School of Law....

[K Frame]

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

I've done no more than a correlary to those who claim that were neigh on governmental mind control through the educational process BECAUSE OF THIS SINGLE SUPREME COURT RULING.

You see, I keep asking for an explanation of how THIS SINGLE SUPREME COURT RULING does that, and so far neither of the two advocates of this stance have been able to present any rational explanation.

I've asked for that explanation three times now, and the only response has been, more or less "This means a government mandated curriculum!"

Once again, I'll ask...

HOW DOES THIS SINGLE SUPREME COURT RULING MEAN THAT THE GOVERMENT IS ABOUT TO, OR EVEN CAN, MANDATE A UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM?[/u]

At this point I really don't expect an answer, just another knee jerk reaction that's not based on the facts of the case. Given the knee jerk, run in circles and shout how the sky is falling because the government is going to mandate a university curriculum, I'd say that the scenarios I've posed are as likely, and as logical, as the one you're so fond of.

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

Whoosh. The point flies right over your head...

[doczinn]

I've done no more than a correlary to those who claim that were neigh on governmental mind control through the educational process BECAUSE OF THIS SINGLE SUPREME COURT RULING.

No, that's not what you did at all. I said:

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

Meaning that it's pretty reasonable, knowing the nature of government, to expext that when they provide financial support they might want control. Then you, quoting that statement said:

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!"

which makes no sense at all.

Whoosh. The point flies right over your head...

Really? Then please be so kind as to explain to me how this exchange:

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

THEN LET THEM.

Laundry back from the kkkleaners?

Doesn't culminate in an accusation of racism.

[Werewolf]

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

Even though a college or university may be completely private would it be right for them to be able to turn away a student that meets or exceeds their academic and extracurricular requirements, can afford the private tuition, for whom their is ample space and is one of only a few colleges or universities that has a curriculum that is specific to that students needs and requirements just because that student has red hair and that particular college or university only admits blondes.

Is that where we really want to go? Back to the days of elitist institutions that discriminate based on social class, race, religion or any of the other criteria that society has decided should not be a requirement for entrance into where or what ever?

Where do private rights end and freedom begin?

[Guest]

Even though a college or university may be completely private would it be right for them to be able to turn away a student that meets or exceeds their academic and extracurricular requirements, can afford the private tuition, for whom their is ample space and is one of only a few colleges or universities that has a curriculum that is specific to that students needs and requirements just because that student has red hair and that particular college or university only admits blondes.

Well, it is OK for our military to behave in exactly this manner. Which is really the crux of the issue here. Yale doesnt want recruiters on their campus who openly refuse to admit people based soley on their sexual prefference. As it stands our military is the only such employer.

HOW DOES THIS SINGLE SUPREME COURT RULING MEAN THAT THE GOVERMENT IS ABOUT TO, OR EVEN CAN, MANDATE A UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM?

Wow, its hard to argue with a point that is capitalized, underlined, AND bolded. Thats a pretty solid argument right there, I see your pulling out the intillectual "big guns" as it were.

Here is how it boils down. This ruling has shown that the federal government can use *our* tax money to compell institutions of learning to comply with their directives. There is nothing to show that this is permanently limited to military recruiters.

[Guest]

If a school is completely private, they should be able to set the rules, even if they discriminate. It's called freedom.

[cordex]

Even though a college or university may be completely private would it be right for them to be able to turn away a student that meets or exceeds their academic and extracurricular requirements, can afford the private tuition, for whom their is ample space and is one of only a few colleges or universities that has a curriculum that is specific to that students needs and requirements just because that student has red hair and that particular college or university only admits blondes.

If you're asking if it would be right for a privately funded school to turn someone away based on the color of their hair, I don't think so.
But if the school accepts no public funds, on what grounds should the government force them to accept non-blondes?  "Fairness"?

Where do private rights end and freedom begin?

Isn't that kind of like saying "Where does six end and half-a-dozen begin?"

[K Frame]

"Wow, its hard to argue with a point that is capitalized, underlined, AND bolded."

Finally, after three tries, I got your attention, Yeager.

Finally.

It took long enough.

Based on your "explanation," every court case, no matter how trivial, that has involved the government, is simply a case of "it's just another example of them taking over."

That the Supreme Court found there to be both legal precedence AND Constitutional (you remember that document, right) validity to the goverment's argument doesn't matter at all, right?

Can you describe for us what it's like to live in such a constant state of fear, waiting for the evil government to take over every aspect of your life?

[Guest]

"Based on your "explanation," every court case, no matter how trivial, that has involved the government, is simply a case of "it's just another example of them taking over."

Why is this statement in quotation? Its not something that I said. Maybe its something that you heard, but what you hear and what people say seem to have little to do with one another, that is your failing.

Can you describe for us what it's like to live in such a constant state of fear, waiting for the evil government to take over every aspect of your life?

I dont, and if you had any ability to comprehend what other people say, you would know that. Why dont you tell me what its like to live in a world where you are the only person who makes sense?

[The Rabbi]

But the issue is not that Yale is imposing some random arbitrary rule.  The issue is that the Constitution of the US gives Congress the authority to pass laws to, in this case, raise an army and Yale is obstructing that.  It is hard to go from that fact to "the government is about to make laws mandating curricula even in schools that dont take Federal funds."
Would anyone support the existence of a school to train terrorists?