T.A Frank, in an awesomely New Republic-esque article, is making the liberal case for the Solomon Amendment. For those not following this, the Solomon Amendment states that schools barring military recruiters from their campus can't receive federal funds. Some law schools are challenging the rule, the Supreme Court is about to take up the case. As Frank aptly writes:
It's a strangely irksome little case, really--one of those disputes that take on a clumsy symbolism and touch unpleasantly on a variety of nerves, like a dentist's drill carelessly exploring a tooth. On one side you have an unfriendly law pushed by an old-fashioned jackass, God rest his soul, and on the other you have a group of educators marinating in self-righteousness. It's hardly an ideal set of heroes.
Word. I, by the way, am someone who supports the Solomon Amendment for totally illiberal reasons, so no one needs to make the case to me. That said, Franks' argument seems wrong/ To him, you've got, on the one hand, gay rights, which are rapidly advancing and, on the other, the military, which is becoming ever more shut out of elite campuses and the educated, wealthy class.
The real shame at the heart of the Solomon Amendment scuffle, then, isn't the possibility of students being confronted by representatives from an organization that discriminates against gays and lesbians. It's the possibility of elites becoming even more isolated from the armed services that keep all of us safe.
This is one of those arguments that you hear a lot, but never seems to make much sense. There's some sort of belief that it'd be somehow beneficial for both the military and society if the Army were composed of an effective cross-section -- or even affluent -- swath of Americans, rather than those whom judge it a good idea.
Why?
