Print
Should colleges be allowed to bar military recruiters?
YES
Lynne Dodson
Campuses deserve the right to choose
Oh, I love a good debate. Eventually, the mission and goals of a college are revisited, reasoned arguments on all sides are openly debated, and a decision is reached about the best ways to create the kind of environment students, faculty, administrators and the community want.
But wait. On this question, we don’t get to have that debate. Instead, we just get to talk about whether campuses should have the right to choose whether military recruiters should be on campus!
Thomas Jefferson expressed one of the founding principles of public higher education in this country: “… we are not afraid to follow truth, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Laws like the Soloman Act, which requires colleges to allow access to military recruiters or lose federal funding, restrict the right and the fundamental duty of colleges to discuss, debate and set policy based on reason and analysis of the issues and the needs of students, the institution and the community.
The colleges that have contested Soloman argue that they require all employer recruiters to testify that they will not discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation or other characteristics of their students. However, the military can’t ensure this because the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibits openly gay and lesbian recruits. The colleges should be allowed to consider whether the rationale for military recruitment outweighs the violation of antidiscrimination policies. Colleges have a responsibility to their students to ensure their well-being, and should be able to make decisions about what will be in their students’ best interest.
If a college community believes Wal-Mart recruiters or temp agencies or telemarketing companies don’t provide opportunities to students that reflect the mission of the college, the community should be able to restrict those organizations’ access to recruiting on campus—just as with military recruiters. We teach that reasoned debate is good, not just because it allows an understanding of different perspectives, but also because we can act in the best interest of our communities. Prohibiting action stifles debate and discussion. We must be able to decide whether military recruitment is in concert with our charge. We should be able to articulate this to our students as well, something we can hardly do unless we are able to make the choice—and take the responsibility for defending that choice.
Lynne Dodson is president of the Seattle Community Colleges Federation of Teachers.
NO
Robert M. Smith
Students must decide for themselves
There is no shortage of rhetoric on both sides. Some emphatically argue that academic institutions have a First Amendment right to challenge the law if permitting the military to recruit conflicts with their nondiscrimination policies. Others counter that the armed services, like any other legitimate employer, should have access to students on campus.
Those who support the ban on recruiters have made it clear their opposition stems from the military policies regarding sexual lifestyles. The procedures they dislike are rooted in U.S. law—a law enacted by the U.S. Congress several years ago. A ban on recruiters would do nothing to rescind that law. Because only our elected officials are in a position to change this law, those who oppose it would be well advised to focus their efforts in that direction.
Ironically, those opposing recruiters on campus argue that they are exercising the freedom of speech to deny others access to information and speech. If our institutions honestly value free speech, they have an obligation to offer unfettered dialogue on both sides and provide the dialectic tools our students need to decide the issue themselves.
Far from being outside elements, our ROTC programs operate best when they are part of the overall university structure. Within the academy, these programs do much to ensure that the military’s officer corps remains connected with the community of ideas that is the hallmark of the American university system.
As members of the academic community, we have a responsibility to educate our nation’s youth by preparing them to effectively decide complex issues through civil debate. We do a great disservice to our own ideals by dictating to our students one side of what is an issue with multiple legitimate sides. We should show confidence in our own educational processes and our students by letting them decide if they want to talk with recruiters or participate in ROTC.
Robert M. Smith is president of Slippery Rock University in Pennsylvania.
