Posted on 2/25/2005, 10:54:29 PM by stan_sipple
A federal judge in Alabama has announced that he will not consider Yale Law School students for federal clerkships because of the school's decision to deny military recruiters equal access to its campus.
The school and the U.S. Department of Defense have been embroiled in a legal fight over the issue, with the school this month announcing that it would return to its nondiscriminatory recruiting policy that will, in effect, limit access to military recruiters who deny enlistment to homosexuals.
Not everyone was happy about the school's position.
In a recent letter to his alma mater, Senior Judge William M. Acker of the Northern District of Alabama in Birmingham told the school's dean that no Yale law students need apply for clerkships " ... unless and until YLS [Yale Law School] changes its mind or the Solomon Amendment is found by the Second Circuit or by the Supreme Court to be constitutional and enforceable against YLS," the judge wrote.
Acker declined to discuss his decision beyond the public statement in his letter and copies of e-mails that he had received from supporters. But lots of other people were talking about the judge's letter through e-mails and Web logs with mixed reactions.
Supporters chimed in on the Web log The Volokh Conspiracy, operated by Professor Eugene Volokh, who teaches First Amendment law at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law. Volokh said that while he supports the judge's right to protest the school's policy, he doesn't think the judge should take it out on law students.
"Collective punishment can sometimes be an effective method of sending a message to an institution, but it's not quite fair to penalize the student for the law school he went to," Volokh said. "Judges ought to try to be extra fair to everyone."
Supporters and detractors alike agreed that the judge has a legal right to choose his clerk by whatever method he chooses.
Yale Law School Dean Harold Hongju Koh was not available for comment. Jan Conroy, director of public affairs for Yale, said that Acker's was the only such letter the school had received.
Senior public affairs officer Richard Carelli of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts said he was not aware of other federal judges taking a similar stand. Carelli added that the issue is not scheduled for discussion at next month's judicial conference.
RECRUITERS STILL WORKING
Yale's Conroy pointed out that Yale students are still being recruited by the military. The school has not banned military recruiters, but does not provide them the affirmative assistance it extends to nondiscriminatory employers, she said.
The school returned to its policy of limited access after being awarded summary judgment by a federal court judge on Feb. 1.
A group of Yale faculty and students had sued the government over its use of the Solomon Amendment to deny federal funds to schools that refuse to facilitate military recruiters.
District Judge Janet Hall approved the school's position, saying the Solomon Amendment had been unconstitutionally applied and no compelling government interest had been shown to deny Yale its First Amendment right to freedom of association. Burt v. Rumsfeld, No. 30CV1777 (D. Conn.).
"Judges ought to try to be extra fair to everyone."
No, judges are to inforce the law.
Good for him. When I first saw this story here on FreeRepublic, I suggested that any Freepers who own businesses should refuse to hire any Yale graduates until that school gets its act together.
So how many Yale students have signed up or is this just court room theatrics?
A potential Supreme Court justice. Good for him.
"Collective punishment can sometimes be an effective method of sending a message to an institution, but it's not quite fair to penalize the student for the law school he went to," Volokh said. "Judges ought to try to be extra fair to everyone."
Give me a break. Typical liberal response. "I can do it to you and punish the country all day long, but if you do it to me, you're not being fair."
There are a lot of other reasons to distrust Yale lawyers, of course, but in this instance we are talking about a lawyer in the employ of the very same government that fields that military.
What they did is just this side of treason but we do not have any reason to subsidize it. All federal courts should rid themselves of law clerks who received their degrees from Yale as rapidly as possible or be disciplined.
Law schools should not exclude employers who would hire their graduates, especially after the school gladly takes the loan money. Not everyone can work for a federal judge, big law firm or for that matter some cry baby public interest organization. Military law offers new lawyers immediate court room experience and direct responsibility for a large case load.
Volokh is a noted libertarian, not a liberal. He has a point but I see no other way to respond. The University trustees have failed in their responsibilities and the loonies have taken over. At Columbia , in protest of the anti-semitism at the Middle East Department, alumni have cut off contributions. At Colorado, in protest to Churchill, the state has reduced funding. All of these things hurt students but if the trustees are irresponsibly allowing the faculty to set stupid policies, there seems little recourse.
As for the poster who said cut off federal funds--Yale instituted this policy when a numbnuts court said the feds couldn't do that.
No, judges are to interpret the law. That's the executive branch's job. Wish they would quit trying to legislate also.
I'm not sure how he's going to justify this interpretation, but it sure feels good that he's going to try.
"Collective punishment can sometimes be an effective method of sending a message to an institution, but it's not quite fair to penalize the student for the law school he went to," Volokh said. "Judges ought to try to be extra fair to everyone."
______________________________________________________
Does this apply to Yale laws school too? Should they not collectively punish military recruiters because of the policy of the US Military? Should they not punish YLS students interested in the Military because of the policies of the US Military. I wonder if someone can point out Volokh's similar article when Yale announced its collective punishment of anyone associated or interested in being associated with the US Military?
Maybe I put the wrong tag to him, but the description fits. Here, he's wrong. And with respect to jerking knees and the relational position of foot and mouth, so are you.
The response, whether or not it applies to Volokh, appropriately describes a typical liberal response.
Yale is free to act on it's principles but must accept the consequences. The judge is free to act on his priciples even if it means difficulties for Yale grads. They can thank their school for their difficulties
Thank you.
<*ding!*>
We have a winner!
thanks..this should be an interesting thread. :^)
I fully support the judges decision. However, I question the worthiness of most Yale Law School graduates to wear the uniform of this great country. It is not a right nor a given that everyone will be allowed to wear the military uniform of this great nation. Ask Dan BLather.
In any case, if a Yale graduate feels he is good enough to be in the US military, he can always find a way to do so off campus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.