FAIR v. Rumsfeld

Yesterday, I had received the Third Circuit's opinion in FAIR v. Rumsfeld right when it came out. I was ready to break the story, to be the first blog to post the opinion - but I was at work, and my remote access didn't work. So then. Here it is a day later and I'm posting about it.

A NY Times article indicates that the dissenting judge and an attorney who wrote an amicus brief on behalf of students in favor of the Solomon Amendment expressed the concern that the impact of this decision will be to harm the quality of applicants for military legal positions.

First, excluding a large number of individuals from applying based on irrelevant criteria, like sexual orientation, will limit the number of qualified applicants. The weak reasons for barring homosexuals from the military don't hold up when it comes to legal jobs. Second, the fact that it is a time of war is not a good reason for anything at all. "But we're in a war!" does not mean that schools, and therefore students, should lose federal funding because they do not permit employers who discriminate to recruit on campus. You can't create your own exigency (to borrow from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence). Additionally, most law school policies merely prevent employers from coming to the campus or attending the job fairs. As a public interest-minded law student, I can tell you that I've used not one law school job fair or on-campus interview. I believe I'm wonderfully qualified for the jobs that I want, but it's incumbent upon me to seek them out. I complain about it all the time, but presumably individuals who are interested in JAG work or whatever would be no worse off than I am. So suck it up and deal. For people who are interested in the military - I support you. Good for you. For people who want military recruiters to come to campus - I understand that too. I just don't agree that the Solomon Amendment is the way to do it.