Unsolomonic

AFEDERAL APPEALS court decision to strike down the so-called Solomon Amendment highlights the layers of bad policy that have led to an unfortunate standoff between the military and a group of law schools. The amendment, named for the late representative Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.), cuts off federal money to universities that don't treat military recruiters as favorably as those recruiting for other potential employers. Numerous law schools, because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays and lesbians, balked at assisting military recruiters, on the grounds that school policies forbid helping organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. When the military, after the Sept. 11 attacks, started enforcing the law more aggressively, the law schools went to court, arguing that it violated their First Amendment rights.

While the legal merits of the case are complicated, the government's moral position is indefensible. The underlying policy of discriminating against gays and lesbians is an affront to patriotic Americans who wish to serve their country -- an affront that serves, by means of their denigration, to deprive the military of their much-needed service. The policy makes homosexual service members deny who they are, though there is no evidence that who they are has any detrimental impact on their ability to serve, and it encourages the very witch hunts it purportedly forbids. The Solomon Amendment, which Congress recently strengthened, then adds insult to injury by forcing universities that take nondiscrimination seriously to become complicit in the insulting and damaging relic. These rules are offensive, and the solution to the problem is to abolish them.

In the meantime, however, the law schools face a difficult question. They would never allow a private employer who openly discriminated against gays and lesbians -- or, for that matter, against Catholics or African Americans -- to avail themselves of their career services. They should be entitled to uphold the same principle for the military. But banning military recruiters from campuses or limiting cooperation with them contributes to a cultural gulf that already divides elite universities from the armed services. Particularly now, as military lawyers -- both civilian and uniformed -- are taking on so many of the cutting-edge issues in the war on terrorism, we would want to see more law school graduates enlisting. A fruitful engagement between the military and these law schools seems essential, and an open recruiting environment should be part of that.