A Question for Stanford Law School
[Guest post by DRJ]
By blogging standards, this is an old story because it was covered by Power Line in mid-November. Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff, a Stanford Law graduate, blogged about his concern that Stanford Law unfairly discourages students from interviewing with military (Navy) recruiters by applying different interview rules for the military than for other recruiters. In addition, Stanford Law students told him that:
“… the Stanford Law faculty has distributed a letter to students telling them that it is disrespectful to their fellow students (i.e., Stanford’s gay and lesbian community) to meet on campus with recruiters from the military.”
Now Law.com has picked up story:
“Nearly the entire faculty of Stanford Law School has signed an e-mail to students encouraging those interested in a career in the military to meet recruiters off campus, a move that one Stanford alum argues puts the school at risk of violating the Solomon Amendment.
Paul Mirengoff, a 1974 Stanford law graduate and now partner at a Washington law firm, has made three entries on his blog, Power Line News, that stop short of saying Stanford is in violation — which the law school says emphatically it is not — but criticize the school for discouraging military recruiters.”
Given the Supreme Court’s Solomon Amendment ruling last year in Rumsfeld vs FAIR, I thought Stanford – and especially Stanford law professors – would have used the utmost care in issues like this. Instead, it looks like Stanford Law and most of its professors put their personal beliefs and politics first. Either that or Stanford Law and its professors don’t trust their law students to make informed choices about potential employers unless they have detailed instructions on “respectful” choices.
So my question to Stanford Law School and the law professors who encourage off-campus military recruiting is this: “Are Stanford Law graduates so poorly prepared that they can’t make personal and professional decisions without detailed instructions?”
It seems the Instapundit and Professor Bainbridge have questions, too.
— DRJ
I’ll be interested to read how Stanford law students end up responding to this. When I was in school, I would have made a point of expressing interest in meeting with the JAG recruiters, just to be difficult.
Clint (1e01b3) — 12/5/2007 @ 8:11 pmIf the Stanford community has a problem with the military’s employment practices they need to take it up with Congress, not pull stunts like this with recruiters. Congress made the rules for the military to follow. Their anger is misdirected.
daleyrocks (906622) — 12/5/2007 @ 10:12 pmWhy is the federal government funding Stanford in the first instance? Apparently those prrofs don’t mind sharing in the federal loot thus, in a financial sense, they’re akin to the military.
jim sweeney (6ba9e3) — 12/5/2007 @ 10:19 pmDRJ, haven’t you learned yet that mere mortals such as ourselves must prostrate ourselves before the anointed? How dare we question the motives and actions of these demi-gods?
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/5/2007 @ 10:55 pmWow, I get to explore a career in the military and be disrespectful to everyone at Stanford Law School? Sign me up. I graduated University of Washington 10 years ago, but can I interview with the JAG Corps at Stanford, too?
Brendon Carr (Korea Law Blog) (505847) — 12/6/2007 @ 12:26 amThese institutions have used tax benefits to become unaccountable monsters. I propose a change in the tax law that any institution with an endowment over $500 million should lose its tax exempt status.
Subsidizer (e2ac77) — 12/6/2007 @ 6:24 amHave just sent this letter in response to the annual Stanford Law School fund raising solicitation:
Thank you for reminding me of my pledge.
I first read about the collective decision of faculty to undermine the Solomon amendment about 2 weeks ago.
I find the actions of the faculty and Dean offensive in this matter. Stanford Law is such a small population where it seems everyone knows everyone else’s business. I know when I attended the school if I had received a letter signed by all of my professors, I would have felt threatened (in my grade and in evaluations of my class performance) if I did not do what it said. What kind of immoral suasion is this veiled threat from the majority of the faculty?
I will not be contributing until this stops.
Thank you for your anticipated prompt cooperation in ensuring that it does.
Janet Rae Montgomery (d9c0f9) — 12/6/2007 @ 7:06 amI agree that as a matter of proper morals and decency and respect for our soldiers and the military, these law professors shouldn’t be doing this.
BUT, from a legal perspective, I’m not seeing where they are actually breaking the Solomon Amendment. The FAIR lawsuit claimed that Solomon violated their Free Speech rights. The government’s response was basically that the faculty remained free to voice their displeasure at the government’s policy all they wanted to. And that’s all they are doing, here.
The proper response is for the alumni and supporters of Stanford to stop contributing, as several of the commenters here have done (and good going, guys!).
PatHMV (ca7f25) — 12/6/2007 @ 7:17 amI think the Stanford Law Profs who signed this email ought to be fired immediately. They have NO business telling students where and when they can meet with other people. I thought we had freedom of association in this country. Apparantly not on the Stanford campus.
I also think the 88 professors who signed the diatribe against the Duke Lacrosse team ought to be fired. They also went too far with some professors flunking students solely for being on the team.
There needs to be a remedy used for these “demi-gods” with tenure. It is called the unemployment line.
PCD (09d6a8) — 12/6/2007 @ 8:34 amPCD, the people that would fire them probably signed the letter too!
I personally do not think these profs should be fired. But don’t go to Standford (and of course, don’t go to Duke). People who went there chose to ignore the race baiting and the paranoia that is used in populist propoganda.
I’ve met so many Duke grads who are little Al Sharptons. PRoud of their Duke predigree, but hateful and paranoid of white people. It’s like they want to divide people. It’s just so wierd. Stnadford is probably not as bad, but for either school, if interviewing someone from there, askt hem what they think about this stuff. It’s worth looking into.
And if you have people of the same quality who went to other schools, you are wise to chose them instead. Private schools have every right to have stupid ideas, and we should simply evaluate their educational merit on that basis.
Dustin (9e390b) — 12/6/2007 @ 9:17 amI crossed Stanford off my contribution list back when they decided that ROTC was no longer welcome on campus.
Jim Gerwick (0e5565) — 12/6/2007 @ 9:30 amThe real problems with the Solomon Amendment are the spineless “Richard Craniums” in charge of enforcing it.
If they would put their foot down with just one major university, and cut off every bit of Fed funding (including Pell Grants, etc), this situation would come to a screeching halt, post quick!
Another Drew (8018ee) — 12/6/2007 @ 5:40 pmStanford has an official “No discrimination in hiring policy” for on-campus recruiters. The military violates Stanford’s official policy. It’s a simple as that.
Many universities have official anti-discrimination in recruiting policies. It is far from unusual. Stanford treats the military exactly the same way it would treat any company that is looking to recruit on Stanford’s campus that discriminates.
J Bromol (e9df00) — 1/5/2008 @ 10:02 amhttp://www.law.stanford.edu/experience/careers/ocs/employers/recruiting/#policies