Court rules, France Yale surrenders; Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia

Yale Law School officials announced yesterday that the school "will end its policy of not working with military recruiters following a court ruling this week that jeopardized about $300 million in federal funding." (Hat tip: InstaPundit.) Some of my NDLS classmates will remember this issue from moot court, but for those unfamiliar with the controversy, here's a quick summary:

Yale and other universities had objected to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gay men and women to serve in the military only if they keep their sexual orientation to themselves. Yale Law School had refused to assist military recruiters because the Penatgon wouldn't sign a nondiscrimination pledge.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Yale on Monday, rejecting its argument that its right to academic freedom was infringed by federal law [i.e., the Solomon Amendment -ed.] that says universities must give the military the same access as other job recruiters or forfeit federal money.

"The fact is we have been forced under enormous pressure to acquiescence in a policy that we believe is deeply offensive and harmful to our students," said Robert Burt, a Yale law professor who was lead plaintiff in the case.

While I disagree strongly with the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, I believe the law schools were wrong on the merits of their legal case, and thus this decision is the correct one -- at least, assuming the issues are similar to what they were in the previous incarnation of the case that we argued. (Admittedly, I haven't followed the evolution of this controversy over the last two years; I'm not even sure how it ended up back in a circuit court after SCOTUS ruled on it in 2006.) I had to argue the government's side in moot court, which was a random crap-shoot, but I ultimately came around to the view that it's the correct side, as I wrote in a previous post. If these policies -- either the underlying military policy toward gays, or the policy cutting off funding to universities that don't give equal access to military recruiters -- are to be changed, that change needs to originate in the legislature, not the courts.

In other news from the world of academia, it seems that while Larry Summers isn't welcome to be a dinner speaker at the University of California, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an honored guest at Columbia. (Hat tip: Becky.) Well, that makes perfect sense to me. Ahmadinejad may be a murderous, oppressive tyrant bent on destroying Israel, dominating the Middle East, opposing America at every turn, and potentially hastening the apocalypse and the arrival of the 12th imam -- but hey, we should listen to what he has to say, right? Only closed-minded bigots and crazy right-wing warbloggers (but I repeat myself!) would say no to an "opportunity for faculty and students to engage the President of Iran." Free exchange of ideas, understanding the "other," and all that sort of thing. Summers, though -- Summers questioned feminist orthodoxy! Tolerance only goes so far, people. The free exchange of ideas extends to Holocaust denial, but it doesn't extend to suggesting the possibility that men and women might not be biologically identical. There are some things you just don't say.

(I hope the sarcasm in the above paragraph is sufficiently dripping. ... And yes, I know, UC and CU are different institutions on different coasts. Perhaps Columbia would welcome Summers, too. But I do think this is indicative of a pattern, as illustrated so well in that David Bernstein column that I linked yesterday, albeit in pirate-speak.)

Speaking of right-wing warbloggers, they're organizing a welcome party for Mahmoud in New York on Monday. (Hat tip, again: InstaPundit.) Anyone in the area want to go there and liveblog it for me?

Comments

[Joe Mama]

Military recruiters, no thanks. Oppressive dictators, step right up! Is it any wonder that students at these "elite" institutions are dumber when they leave than when they enter?

[Trisha]

That's a great article, Joe Mama. I actually blogged about it! And, of course, a great point, Brendan ;)

[David K.]

Hmm, lets see, you have to take a diverse curriculum to apply for college and then once you are actually IN college you spend most of your time focusing on the areas of interest to you. Thats news??

Sorry but knowing less about a topic which may very well not have anything to do with anything you are interested in after graduating from college does not make someone "dumber". Shockingly enough people DO forget things that they don't actively use. But hey, i'm sure its very important that that electrical engineer to know what dates Lincoln was president!

[ZT]

"Don't ask, don't tell" is NOT a 'military policy'. It is a Federal statute, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. The military has no option of signing a non-discrimination pledge.

[jej]

"While I disagree strongly with the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy....."

It is not the military's policy. Its the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President. The military is merely obeying the law.

[Patrick]

Brendan,

Wow, I don't think there is anything in your post for which I can express disagreement! I expected you to spout FAIR's contentions from the original Solomon case ... and I even knew you had written a brief for the government. In truth, I actually see the merits of the law schools' point of view, and expected that, given your outspoken support of gay marriage, you'd follow FAIR's logic in what I believe is a narrow legal issue. I'm curious, though, do you simply believe that the federal courts involved here have simply applied the applicable 1st Amendment precedents appropriately, or that the government really should have the right to coerce the tolerance of military recruiters at schools by placing such severe stipulations on considerable amounts of federal aid? In either case, how did you ultimately come to the conclusion that the Solomon Amendment is not an unconstitutional condition? Further, how have you concluded that it does not constitute compelled speech, or, if you believe that it is, that it satisfies either strict or immediate scrutiny?

As to your discussion of Ahmadinejad, I concur wholeheartedly. "Tolerance" all too often only extends to individuals who promote one's own worldview. Given Ahmadinejad's extremist and dangerous points of view, we should be reminded that tolerance is not an unmitigated good and that its limits should yield to concerns for public safety and the common good.

[Stephen Albert]

I don't know if you were sarcastic enough.

However, there is another reason not to invite the Iranian President to Columbia. France Britain and the US are trying to isolate Iran and have sanctions voted against it. The French foreign minister has joined the US in making it clear that Iran can not be allowed to have the bomb.

Iran would have a hard time getting out from under serious EU sanctions. It needs to convince Germany and other Eu countries that are reluctant to vote sanctions no to change their mind.

By inviting the Ahmadinejad to speak ,Columbia is making him seem respectable, at a time when the West is isolate Iran.

Lending legitimacy to this man is the height of folly.

[Gamer]

Really drive the hypocrisy point home: find some statements Ahmadinejad has made denigrating women per Islam. Better yet, ask him if he agrees with Summers.

Then again, you can't really expect the Other to live up to the standards of Civilized People.

[pst314]

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was to a large degree merely an excuse to ban military recruiters. Having grown up in the sixties, and having had many decades of exposure to liberal and leftist academics, I am painfully familiar with their longstanding hatred for the American military.

On the other hand, the left has long tended to adulate thuggish tyrants, and the more thuggish the better. As Tony Judt observed in his recent book Postwar,

"...writers, professors, artists, teachers and journalists frequently
admired Stalin not in spite of his faults, but because of them. It was
when he was murdering people on an industrial scale, when the show
trials were displaying Soviet Communism at its most theatrically
macabre, that men and women beyond Stalin’s grasp were most
seduced by the man and his cult. It was the absurdly large gap
separating rhetoric from reality that made it so irresistible to men
and women of goodwill in search of a Cause."

This tendency has continued, of course, with such monsters as Mao, Castro, Che, and so on, and shows no sign of ending.

[KarenT]

I think the demonization of Larry Summers and the welcoming of Ahmadinejad are simply reflections of current religious orthodoxy among "progressive" academics. Many religious people are hostile to the apostate, but want to reach out to the heathen in understanding. But the majority of adherents to traditional religions in America do not take these tendencies to such destructive extremes.

[edh]

Don't Ask, Don't Tell for homosexuals to stay in the US military: unfair?

Um, last time I looked, Iran was executing homosexuals... for being homosexual.

And in Iran, they ask!

[R. Richard Schweitzer]

Why does the Federal Government give money to the richly endowed Yale Law School?

Is there "means testing," as most of its profs would recommend for most other subsidies?

[Joe Mama]

Sorry but knowing less about a topic which may very well not have anything to do with anything you are interested in after graduating from college does not make someone "dumber". Shockingly enough people DO forget things that they don't actively use.

Good point. I guess if you live in Iowa and have no use for the ocean because you're just not interested, then not being able to point out which oceans are which on a map doesn't make you dumb.

[Joe Mama]

But hey, i'm sure its very important that that electrical engineer to know what dates Lincoln was president!

Well, if you knew what years Lincoln was president as a freshman, but then don't know by the time you're a senior 4 years later (the decrease in knowledge being the point of the article, after all), then I don't care what your major is, you're dumb.

[David K.]

"Why does the Federal Government give money to the richly endowed Yale Law School?"

Um grants? You apply for research grants based on merit not on need.

[Joe Loy]

"...(I'm not even sure how it ended up back in a circuit court after SCOTUS ruled on it in 2006.)"

From The Hartford Courant's piece on it:

Yale's lawsuit, similar to a suit brought by other law schools, challenged...the Solomon Amendment, [which] forced Yale to back down from its equal-rights stance or risk losing $300 million in federal funding.

...In 2003, about half of Yale's law school faculty sued the military, claiming the Solomon Amendment violated their academic freedom and right to criticize government.

The district court ruled in favor of Yale but the decision was effectively overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a related case. Yale tried to appeal but this week, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals delivered the knock-out punch.

With regard to the Federal Funding, I can't help but think of the old adage that He who pays the Piper calls the Tune. / Pursuant to which it's evident that as to Yale's Own preferred melody, Congress finds that

...never was piping so sad
And never was piping so gay.

(with Deepest apologies to Yeats. / And to O'Driscoll. :)

[DBL]

David K - It may be true that an electrical engineer doesn't need to know when Abraham Lincoln was president in order to practice the profession of electrical engineering, but I would feel a lot better about letting him vote if he was well informed about American history.

[Alasdair]

How can one be surprised by Columbia, given that Columbia's Alma Mater is "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles" ... (grin) ... one must admit, it does exemplify the Columbia true liberal spirit ...

[David K.]

"Well, if you knew what years Lincoln was president as a freshman, but then don't know by the time you're a senior 4 years later (the decrease in knowledge being the point of the article, after all), then I don't care what your major is, you're dumb."

Um, no it means you remembered useless trivia. People FORGET things, especially things that aren't useful to them. And forgetting the dates a man was president doesn't make one dumber, it means they recently had American history and then later didn't have it. Its really that simple, but you'd like to take the argument and somehow condemn the entire higher education system. Talk about a stretch.

There are criticisms to be made about higher education, areas where it can improve for sure, but the point that article and that you have bought in to is utterly inane. You can't take a single data point from a single test in which who knows WHAT was tested and extrapolate that higher education makes people stupid. On top of which, i need to point this out again just so you get it, forgetting random facts does not make someone DUMB.

[David K.]

"David K - It may be true that an electrical engineer doesn't need to know when Abraham Lincoln was president in order to practice the profession of electrical engineering, but I would feel a lot better about letting him vote if he was well informed about American history. "

How does not knowing Lincoln's years of Presidency make one uninformed about American history? How does this ONE test prove that people are uninformated about American history? We don't know what was actually ON the test.

I agree that a better grasp of history could make for a more informed voter, but I'd settle for our President to have a better grasp of history.

And if we are worrying about people voting based on what they do and don't know, I think we should first be worrying about the legions of people who barely graduated high school and are voting before we worry about the more informed, even if they have forgotten some of it, college bound.

[Joe Mama]

Um, no it means you remembered useless trivia. People FORGET things, especially things that aren't useful to them. And forgetting the dates a man was president doesn't make one dumber, it means they recently had American history and then later didn't have it. Its really that simple, but you'd like to take the argument and somehow condemn the entire higher education system. Talk about a stretch.

The question on the test was not "What dates was Lincoln president?" It was, "Abraham Lincoln was elected President during which period?", and proceeded to list five 25-year periods from 1800 to 1925. If you graduated from college -- let alone went to Harvard, Columbia or Yale -- and don't know when Lincoln was president within 25 years, then that is pathetic. Its really that simple.

There are criticisms to be made about higher education, areas where it can improve for sure, but the point that article and that you have bought in to is utterly inane.

Um, sorry, but the point of that article -- that seniors at Harvard scored a D+ average on a relatively simple 60-question multiple-choice civics exam -- is far from "inane," and in point of fact is quite simply startling. Dismissing that as "inane" is the real stretch here.

You can't take a single data point from a single test in which who knows WHAT was tested and extrapolate that higher education makes people stupid. On top of which, i need to point this out again just so you get it, forgetting random facts does not make someone DUMB.

Wait, hold the phone. If by "single data point" you're referring to the dates when Lincoln was president (which, as I explained above, was not even the question), then the person doing any extrapolating here is YOU, not ME. Who first mentioned anything about that "single data point?" Oh, that's right, it was YOU. Moreover, David, your whining about "who knows WHAT was tested" illustrates that you didn't even read the test before dismissing it out of hand, and in the process making your typical lame personal insults. If you think the test is asking merely about "random facts" then fine (although I would think you are a complete doofus), but at least read the damn thing first.

How does not knowing Lincoln's years of Presidency make one uninformed about American history? How does this ONE test prove that people are uninformated about American history? We don't know what was actually ON the test.

Again, that wasn't quite the question. And not knowing exactly when Lincoln was president doesn't by itself necessarily mean one doesn't know American history, but if you don't know within a 25-year period when Lincoln was president (which was the actual question), then odds are pretty good that you are in fact uninformed about American history (kind of like how David is utterly uninformed about the test he is dismissing).

I agree that a better grasp of history could make for a more informed voter, but I'd settle for our President to have a better grasp of history.

Just couldn't help your BDS, could you.

[Joe Mama]

I took that quiz, and I won't toot my horn about my score, but suffice it to say I did a helluva lot better than the seniors at Harvard. For sh*ts and giggles I also forwarded it to my mom, who didn't even go to college, and SHE got 70% of the questions correct. Perhaps you belong at Harvard, David.

[Brett]

How nice. Leave it to David K to take an argument completely unrelated to the current administration and turn it to take a shot at W.

You must be very good at twister.

For the record, my former boss was a Harvard MBA grad. The guy was smart as a whip when it came to the pure business aspect of the job. Common sense and leadership ability - dumb as a stump. I always found that strange.

[David K.]

"single data point?"

The TEST is a single data point. ONE test at ONE school. Did they tell you what majors took the test? Did they tell you if any of them had taken a history course in the five years they were there?

And i love how you get indignant about me taking a shot at W, but you feel free taking a shot at the entire "liberal" education system. Your double standard is showing.

[Rich Vail]

What I find most amusing....

Those who object the loudest to the military policy of "don't ask, don't tell" have NEVER EVER served in the military, nor are they likely to ever serve. To me, this is hypocracy in action.

Richard Vail, Ph.D.
(formerly, LCPL USMC)

Richard,

With all due respect, you seem unclear on the definition of "hypocrisy." What you describe is NOT hypocrisy. It might be... um... irony, or something. But not hypocrisy.

[Joe Mama]

The TEST is a single data point. ONE test at ONE school.

It was not "ONE test at ONE school." The study, conducted by UConn, was distributed to 14,000 college seniors at 50 colleges and universities across the country (25 "elite" schools were hand-picked, and the other 25 schools were randomly selected). And as the article goes on to say, the multiple-choice questions were written by specialists in each field.

I guess it's fitting that the person defending stupidity here didn't even read the article or the test that he's dismissing out of hand. Stick to Bush-hating, David. It's more your pace.

[Joe Mama]

And i love how you get indignant about me taking a shot at W, but you feel free taking a shot at the entire "liberal" education system. Your double standard is showing.

My entire response to your tangent about Bush was, "Just couldn't help your BDS, could you." How is that "indignant?" You obviously don't know what that word means, David, otherwise you would know that your silly canard about my "double standard" is likewise baseless.

[Tennwriter]

I think David K. doesn't want people to be tested on their knowledge of basic data that everyone should know (Yes, David, everyone above age twelve should be able to answer the Lincoln question. If you can't, its a minor failing.).

Why? Because he doesn't want such basic data taught. He wants other data taught in its place. I have no certainty as to what that data he'd like taught in the place of Real History, but I have some suspicions. He's also defending liberal colleges from the just charge that they are not being very useful to the society, and are wasting time teaching things of little value to a Hi-tech Republic.

[David K.]

Actually Tennwriter your completely wrong.

First, I said that basing an argument of "your dumber after college" on random factoids such as that one is ridiculous and pointless. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that a high school graduate, one who has most likely JUST TAKEN U.S. History since its part of most schools required curriculum, to then forget some of the trivial dates and such this test focused on after four years of study which may or may not have included taking a U.S. History course.

In addition the test itself is a flawed means of judging knowledge. Being able to memorize factual snippets is, IMO, of very little educational value. If you want to test people on their knowledge of American History, test them on what actually happened, and WHY it happened, and what the EFFECTS were.

Ask them WHY the settles came to Jamestown and what struggles they faced. Ask them WHY the revolution happened, what were the contributing factors, what led up to the declaration of hostilities. Ask them WHY the great depression occured and how it affected America leading up to WWII, and in fact why WWI lead to WWII. Ask them to APPLY the knowledge, show that they understand the connections and ask them to explain it.

Whether or not I remember what the name of DeToqueville's essays were is of small importance compared to understanding the socio-political climate that existed in this country and throughout the world during the Cold War.

There are two entirely seperate arguments going on here, the first, whether or not this was an accurate and reasonable measure of intelligence and whether colleges are failing students.

Second, is whether teaching history is valuable.

To the first, I say no, its NOT an accurate measure for the reasons I have outlined.

To the second, absolutely yes I think teaching history is valuable, but I also realize that it is simply not possible for every student to take every course I think is valuable or others think is valuable. The time demand taken up by courses in ones required major is significant, leaving some room for divesrity courses such as a few mandatory history classes, but there is a breadth of such classes to choose from. In addition whether or not a student chooses to avail themselves of the options available at the college and decided to retain the knowledge is up to that student.

I'll admit i skimmed the article and relied on what was being said in comments and missed that this test was administered at many locations. But I'm glad Joe Mama pointed out what he did above, its an interesting line:

The exam was distributed to 14,000 college seniors at 50 institutions of higher education across the country

So based on this description we have no clue whatsoever that they actually got "dumber" as he argued and as did the article because we have no baseline! It was my assumption that the test was given twice, once as they entered and again as they left, but from the description i was wrong, it merely tested their knowledge once. How do you know that they ever HAD that knowledge to begin with?!? Multiple choice tests in history are worth less than the paper they are printed on, and a test without a baseline is equally useless.

[Joe Mama]

It is correct that the basis for the assertion that students at elite institutions know less upon leaving than upon entering is the fact that at universities such as Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Duke, and Berkeley, seniors scored lower on the test than freshmen. A more accurate measurement would indeed have been to give the same test to the same students, once as freshman and again as seniors. As David points out, we have know idea whether the seniors tested at Harvard ever had more than a D+ knowledge of basic civics to begin with. But that is the really startling part of this UConn study IMHO -- not that students necessarily know less upon graduating (although when it comes to basic civics, the available data certainly points in that direction, at least with respect to Princeton, Yale, Cornell, Duke and Berkeley), but that students at places like freakin' Harvard know so little about basic civics. And with all due respect to David, multiple-choice history tests, with or without a "baseline," certainly are not worth less than the paper they are printed on as a measurement of historical knowledge. If you don't have basic historical knowledge, then you will find it very difficult to apply that knowledge to answer the WHYs and TO WHAT EFFECTs that David values so highly.

And FWIW, regarding David's assertion that engineers can't be expected to know the basic civics being tested in that study, I graduated with a BS in engineering, and was afforded precious few opportunities to take electives outside of a very rigorous engineering curriculum (in other words, I was precisely the type of undergraduate David is making excuses for). As I said above, I scored much higher on that test than the average Harvard senior.

[Joe Mama]

Victor Davis Hanson:

Such a Strange Place, Academia

It is likely (a) that Ahmadinejad was one of the terrorists who took American hostages in 1979, and so helped to start the quarter-century rise of radical Islamic jihadism that blew up on September 11; and (b) that he wants to visit September 11 precisely for the purpose of boasting when back home “I am going there, because I can,” the subtext, if not the overt message, cynically to commemorate what we deserved.

What is stranger is why Columbia university tried to invite a terrorist to speak who denies the first holocaust and advocates a second one. This is not a matter of free speech but of common decency and the most elemental common sense.

In light of the UC Davis's recent refusal to have Larry Summers speak, we see once again what's behind the curtain at our top universities-a generic class of 9-5 boutique leftists who rant and rave over inviting a liberal President who only gave the various women's projects $50 million at Harvard, but who in turn are largely quiet about hosting a thug whose thugs recently imprisoned an Iranian-American female scholar and do more than any other nation-state in oppressing women.

But then for forty years we have been taught that there are no absolutes, only culturally-constructed relative impressions predicated on power. So while we "know" Summers, as a powerful, rich white man, is hostile to women ,we can not use such standards to suggest the same of one of the multi-cultural "other," long a victim of Western colonialism, racism, and sexism. Would the feminists at UC Davis have objected to Bill Clinton speaking - a target of a sexual harassment suit, and dallying with a young female employee in an "asymmetrical" power relationship?

Still, if one examines the recent shameful treatment of Chemerinsky at Irvine, Summers at Davis, and the idea of inviting a terrorist to Columbia, the lowest common denominator is not even politics, but stupidity on the part of university administrators, who blunder into decisions, then give sanctimonious lectures about free speech, a topic they have rarely have studied and know nothing about, and then usually cave when reminded of how embarrassing they've become.

All this is just another reminder how divorced from our common culture and workplace academics have become, and how little respect the public accords them.

Proof?

The replacement for the gender-insensitive Summers apparently will be Gov. Schwarzenegger - who fought serial accusations of groping in his first gubernatorial campaign and was once sued for sexual harassment.

A strange place indeed . . .