TheAnvil 0 #26 March 7, 2006 If the school does not want the military to recruit there, then it should not accept federal funds. Period. You accept the funds, you allow all federal agencies to recruit there. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 March 7, 2006 QuoteIf the school does not want the military to recruit there, then it should not accept federal funds. Period. You accept the funds, you allow all federal agencies to recruit there. I pretty much agree. In this case, the issues should be decoupled. It's wrong that the military discriminates without just cause. But it is an essential need and they need their supply of leutenants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stoneycase 0 #28 March 7, 2006 pretty much what Robert's said during oral: Rosenkranz: "The law schools' message is, they believe it is immoral to abet discrimination." O'Connor: "But they can say that to all" who want to hear that message. Rosenkranz: "But when they say that, students don't believe the message." Roberts: "The reason they don't believe you is because you're willing to take the money. What you're saying is, it's a message we believe in strongly, but not to the tune of a hundred million dollars." I'd have to say it's a damn fine point, I wouldn't want to be Rosenkranz, that's for sure. So the next move there is for the school(s) to put-up and turn down the money. I guess my question is though: if these stats are true(from CNN): Universities receive about $35 billion a year in federal funds, much of it for medical and scientific research. Shouldn't we be asking ourselves, are we OK with a general decrease in the level of scientific and medical research at college campuses... is it OK that because campuses believe in "anti-discrimination/equality/etc" policies and adhere to them by deciding not to accept federal funds, that our future research into the fields of science and medicine is reduced? will this happen? $35bn is quite a bit, though I doubt all schools will stick to their policies and decline, I imagine some will, maybe even some prestigious (ivy league) schools...what amount of money will they forego? how will that affect their physics/math/science departments? what will be the "net net" as a result?Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #29 March 7, 2006 QuoteIMHO, the law school was in the right. even if they accept federal funds(why not make the arg that the law school must meet federal "standards for education" therefore they *must* accept federal money?). if you discriminate on the basis of nationality, religion, race, sex, or sexuality, then, IMHO you don't belong on a college campus looking for potential employees. take it to the classifieds, like the rest of the strip clubs/escort services ;) I guess this is where were just gonna disagree. As an adult student at a college I don't need the college feeling as if they should filter my job opportunities. I'm an adult with my own convictions and would prefer to see all options presented. Thats what college is about right, being open minded and seeing all sides to everything. It doesn't seem to me that the govt crossed any major boundaries here. Its not like they control the curriculum or schools operations. They are simply saying if you want our federal aid, you will give federal jobs the same recruitment rights as anyone else on campus. Seems plenty fair in my book. If the damn school is gonna nitpick that bad then they should be totally private without govt aid, as many schools are to ensure they don't have any govt influence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stoneycase 0 #30 March 7, 2006 QuoteIts not like they control the curriculum or schools operations. how about indirectly? through the removal of funds from "scientific and medical research"? i see the point, don't come with your hand out, and then shut your door on us. like i said, i wouldn't want to be rosenkranz, up there trying to argue against that point. so, ok, we won't come with our hand out. now what? whats the actual end result? seems like money is taken away from valuable research...all because the school had an anti-discrimination policy?... edit: you say "federal jobs", as far as i know this is all about the armed services discrimination against openly gay people. does that discrimination exist for "federal employee's"...i don't think so...i think we're talking about folks wearing uniforms carrying weapons here. not to be confused with Suzy Procurement Administrator.Does whisky count as beer? - Homer There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #31 March 7, 2006 Quoteedit: you say "federal jobs", as far as i know this is all about the armed services discrimination against openly gay people. does that discrimination exist for "federal employee's"...i don't think so...i think we're talking about folks wearing uniforms carrying weapons here. not to be confused with Suzy Procurement Administrator. I consider military persons federal employees just as much as I do Suzy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #32 March 7, 2006 Quotethe military doesn't allow gays. wrong. the military does allow gays. they only have to follow one, simple rule: keep it to yourself because situations arise in the military where having known homosexuals present proves to be too detrimental to the mission."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #33 March 7, 2006 If the government doesn't give it to one school, then another school who decides to abide by government guidlines will get the money and other research into the same field will occur. School's loss - tough caca for them. I don't see how a school accepting government money expects to bar its doors to government recruiters. It doesn't make sense. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #34 March 7, 2006 My school not only allows recruiters on campus, we also provide an office for them!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #35 March 7, 2006 Quote Do you feel if other recruiters are allowed on campus at any time, the military should be as well? I do agree with that... There shouldn't be different standards for different organizations in terms of solicitation on campuses... but it definitely happens, right? Of course schools are selective with who they let solicitate on campus, even during Job fairs. It is strange that in order for an educational institution to receive funding from the Fed, they must allow the Military Recruiters to solicitate on their campuses... I just don't thiink that Military Recruitment and Educational Funding should be intertwined like this... Does it really make sense for a school to lose it's educational funding because it doesn't want the United States Military recruiting it's students? There must be better reasons to deny funds... like student / teacher ratios, academic excellence, financial aid student numbers, number of accepted students, budget cuts, etc, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airfury17 0 #36 March 7, 2006 Um...my school is Run by Military people. AHHH! www.culver.org and by the way. Campuses stop bitching we need brave officers and military Personal. We are glad we get this service and have such a strong Military Force. To protect ourselves. Thank you goes out to all the Soldiers out there! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #37 March 7, 2006 QuoteQuotethe military doesn't allow gays. wrong. the military does allow gays. they only have to follow one, simple rule: keep it to yourself because situations arise in the military where having known homosexuals present proves to be too detrimental to the mission. The military once banned blacks saying allowing them would be disruptive and detrimental to the mission ...they were right. Then blacks were allowed and the military changed and adapted. You now make the same argument against gays. The detriment comes from the inbreeding of prejudice. Get rid of the silly assed rule and the military will once again change and adapt ...and be better for it.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #38 March 7, 2006 Personally, I don't care whether recruiters are on campus or not. I do care when they bother me, as they're wasting my time and theirs. There's nothing wrong with them having an office or a table or whatever, or putting up posters. Contacting students personally, by telephone, email, or in person is inappropriate when the student has expressed no interest whatsoever. I'd be just as pissed off if it were McDonalds or the fire department recruiting in this manner. I don't care about the job itself, but high pressure recruiting tactics that invade privacy are never appropriate, by anyone. A military recruiter got every student's email address at my school and spammed each one of us about joining the army. A few of the undergrad students started a bit of a movement, and many of the students (more upset about the fact that they were being spammed, especially being spammed by the government, rather than the subject matter) replied with two words and two words only: "Fuck off." I didn't hear about this until after the fact, when, a few days later, the recruiter sent out a rather apologetic email and stated that all students that had replied with "please remove me from your list" or an otherwise "negative response" would be immediately removed from his list and he was very sorry for the inconvenience. We never heard from him again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #39 March 7, 2006 Even for those who aren't prejudice against gays, it still would be detrimental to the mission if you had to share a small ass tent w/ another dude who just might want to cornhole you. I don't agree w/ homosexuality, but I'm not going to prejudice against them. In fact, I have a few friends from college who are gay, I don't have a problem w/ it besides just simply disagreeing...but I don't just not talk to them, hang out w/ them. However, if I had to spend 6 months in the desert sharing a small tent w/ a guy who might find me sexually attractive (and they would), then that would make me feel very uncomfortable, despite the fact that I don't have anything major against gays. That feeling could very well affect my ability to do the mission. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 March 7, 2006 ***w/ a guy who might find me sexually attractive (and they would)*** You got a perty mouth... How does your statement of "being uncomfortable" with the thought of gay teammates (which I will almost *guarantee* you have) compare to the pretty, female E4 in the transportation unit that gets harassed for dates by the other soldiers? Do you think that might affect her ability to do the mission? Gays have been in the military (and every other walk of life) since the dawn of time - the only thing that's changed is that in ages past, it was known and accepted. Harassment is harassment, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved. It should *NOT* be tolerated in any form.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #41 March 7, 2006 QuoteThe military once banned blacks saying allowing them would be disruptive and detrimental to the mission ...they were right. Then blacks were allowed and the military changed and adapted. You now make the same argument against gays. The detriment comes from the inbreeding of prejudice. Get rid of the silly assed rule and the military will once again change and adapt ...and be better for it. i disagree. there is a fundamental difference between the two situations that you bring up. not allowing blacks to fight in various positions was due to racism and it was illogical but, having homosexuals in an environment where men must live in close quarters for long periods of time is completely different. this would invite problems that are currently being avoided. there are some military positions that don't require deployment and don't require long field exercises and i think having gays in these positions would be fine but, not the opposite."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #42 March 7, 2006 scarcasm - Maybe they should keep the gays recruiting on campuses and let the real men, the straight men go fight for America - /scarcasm Seriously, to be paranoid about being "cornholed" if you had to share a tent with a homosexual is a little bit ridiculous, especially when you 'claim" to be ok with people being gay Somebody's sexual preference shouldn't make a difference as to what role they play in the military. Any thing different is discrimination, plain and simple. You can't be there because of your sexual preference, you can't do that because of your gender, you can't be here because of your race, you can't participate because of your religion... Get it? One person being discriminated against because of one's sexual preference is no different than someone being discriminated against because of someone's race or religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #43 March 7, 2006 QuoteEven for those who aren't prejudice against gays, it still would be detrimental to the mission if you had to share a small ass tent w/ another dude who just might want to cornhole you. I don't agree w/ homosexuality, but I'm not going to prejudice against them. In fact, I have a few friends from college who are gay, I don't have a problem w/ it besides just simply disagreeing...but I don't just not talk to them, hang out w/ them. However, if I had to spend 6 months in the desert sharing a small tent w/ a guy who might find me sexually attractive (and they would), then that would make me feel very uncomfortable, despite the fact that I don't have anything major against gays. That feeling could very well affect my ability to do the mission. Perhaps the hardest 'sell' is not those who froth at the mouth against homosexuality being an abomination and a crime against humanity, but those otherwise good people who feel they are not prejudiced ...as long as gays are elsewhere. Now, if it's your living room (or bedroom) we were talking about, fine. The govt issued tent for a govt employee doing the govt's work is quite another, don't you think? How about sharing a tent with a black man? Would the resultant lack of self esteem due to penis envy be detrimental to the mission? How about sharing a tent with a woman who might find you sexually attractive (you big stud!)? Hell, I haven't even met you and I want to cornhole you. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 March 7, 2006 QuoteHell, I haven't even met you and I want to cornhole you. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 March 7, 2006 QuoteEven for those who aren't prejudice against gays, it still would be detrimental to the mission if you had to share a small ass tent w/ another dude who just might want to cornhole you. I don't agree w/ homosexuality, but I'm not going to prejudice against them. In fact, I have a few friends from college who are gay, I don't have a problem w/ it besides just simply disagreeing...but I don't just not talk to them, hang out w/ them. However, if I had to spend 6 months in the desert sharing a small tent w/ a guy who might find me sexually attractive (and they would), then that would make me feel very uncomfortable, despite the fact that I don't have anything major against gays. That feeling could very well affect my ability to do the mission. Are you presupposing, or are you military? I ask because I recently a soldier/DZ member had posted into a thread that he was happy to have good men in the field, and that this wasn't a concern of his. Making me wonder if all this concern for anxious heterosexual soldiers (who do have guns, btw) in the field is a bit overblown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dontbounce 0 #46 March 7, 2006 The military needs troops. I thik they should be allowed to recruit. If you are dumb enough (or desparate enough like I was) so sign on the dotted line, then get ready for 4-8 years of "be careful what documents you sign without reading" training.... Besides the big argument is about law schools. I say we make a combat tour a prequisite for becoming a lawyer. That would thin the ranks a little.... Probably be great for America... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #47 March 7, 2006 Quotebut those otherwise good people who feel they are not prejudiced ...as long as gays are elsewhere. That doesn't describe me...like I said in my previous post, I have a few gay friends. QuoteNow, if it's your living room (or bedroom) we were talking about, fine. The govt issued tent for a govt employee doing the govt's work is quite another, don't you think? No I don't think. It's easy for you to say when you're not in the position. Sharing a 6x8 space w/ another dude who likes dudes is the exact same as sharing your small bedroom w/ the guy. Being in that situation for 6 months can very easily affect mission ability. QuoteHow about sharing a tent with a black man? Would the resultant lack of self esteem due to penis envy be detrimental to the mission? Not for me, maybe for some guys. But in reality, having good natured "my cock is bigger than yours" is completely different than "is that guy staring at me right now while I'm laying on my cot facing away from him?" QuoteHow about sharing a tent with a woman who might find you sexually attractive (you big stud!)? It's true, she would. However, I would have to sustain and truthfully say that men sharing the same space w/ a woman would be probably equally as destructive to mission capability as sharing a tent w/ another dude who might want you as bad as the broad does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #48 March 7, 2006 I'm military. Just b/c we're both (you're DZ guy and me) are in the military doesn't mean we'll have the same opinion. I am happy to have good men w/ me, but I don't think it's a problem to have the gay guys keep it to themselves, considering 98% of the other dudes aren't going to take kindly to living in close quarters w/ the guy. Sure there might be a very small amount who have no problem sharing a few square feet of tent w/ a guy who might find them attractive, but the vast majority do not want that and would not feel comfortable, even despite the fact that many aren't raging anti-homosexual biggots. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #49 March 8, 2006 QuoteEven for those who aren't prejudice against gays, it still would be detrimental to the mission if you had to share a small ass tent w/ another dude who just might want to cornhole you. this is a bullshit argument..it is called discipline, and if the modern military taught more of it, sexual orientation would not be an issue at all.. if your discomfort affects your ability to do your mission you lack discipline.. so instead our military hides its head in the sand and shoots itself in the foot by creating a repressed, hidden segment of military personnel who wish to serve their country just as proudly as you do.. hell i personally know FOUR 3/3 Arab linguists (as well as others from several critical MOS) that were chaptered due to the military's failure to address this social issue properly... the fact is, you've probably already been in a foxhole with a homosexual... guess what? DISCIPLE is what kept you ignorant of the fact.. a discipline to hide who they really are in order to continue to serve in an environment that continues to promote ignorance and prejudice instead of progress and true discipline in the ranks.. the simple fact that you cannot imagine a gay man who doesn’t covet your ass simply because its there, shows how little you know about the real world when it comes to hetero and homosexual interaction. but then i do blame the military in this.. it continues to ingrain ignorance and prejudice instead of addressing reality.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,643 #50 March 8, 2006 Quotethe complaint was brought by a law school.... the law school had a policy - no recruiters/representatives/companies that discriminate in their hiring practices - in any shape or form. pretty straight forward - you don't hire black people, you don't show up on campus. you don't hire women, you don't show up on campus. you don't hire jews, you don't show up on campus. and so on and so forth. the military doesn't allow gays. this meets the law school's standards for "discrimination" (some of you may actually think this *isn't* discrimination...). therefore, the law school said, "thanks, but no thanks" to the recruiters. equal application of their policy they thought...obviously SCOTUS begs to differ... IMHO, the law school was in the right. even if they accept federal funds(why not make the arg that the law school must meet federal "standards for education" therefore they *must* accept federal money?). if you discriminate on the basis of nationality, religion, race, sex, or sexuality, then, IMHO you don't belong on a college campus looking for potential employees. take it to the classifieds, like the rest of the strip clubs/escort services ;) If you sell your soul to the Devil you don't get to opt out of Hell. If they don't like the government's conditions they shouldn't take the government money (AKA OUR money).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
