This May Be Why Shakespeare Said "The First Thing We Do Is, Let's Kill All The Lawyers"

Have you been following the US Supreme Court case about whether colleges and universities can keep military recruiters off their campuses because of the military's policy of excluding openly gay people from service . . . without having to give up the federal funds and research grants they receive?

I do not like the military's main argument on the subject, which comes down to "you cannot discriminate against us just because WE discriminate." I do, however, confess to having some sympathy with the notion that the universities do not have any entitlement to get federal funds if they don't let the military recruiters do their jobs on campus on an equal footing with other potential employers.

The only possible saving grace for the universities' position is Justice David Souter's key observation that governmental restrictions on giving federal monies to universities which wish to protest the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy infringe on First Amendment free speech rights.

Still, it's a post-9/11 world, and a Neocon Gilded Age to boot. Methinks the putative free speech rights of a bunch of allegedly "wild-eyed" left-wingers will be trumped by the practical reality that no institution has a RIGHT to get research grants and funds from the federal government. This is not unlike the case of unfunded federal mandates, wherein the government threatens to withhold, say, highway funds from any state not participating in some grandiose federally sanctioned goal, like "No Child Left Behind." No one is required to participate, but no one who refuses to participate gets any of the goodies tied to participating. It's the state's or university's choice. [Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.--Ed.]

Of course, as a further practical matter, no university can afford to forego the massive amount of federal funding it receives. The federal government pumps something on the order of $35 billion--with a "B"--into supporting American colleges and universitites every year.

So the federal government's position is little more than legalized extortion. The most amusing aspect of this is that the Neocons don't like unfunded federal mandates--when the mandate is for something the Neocons disagree with on a philosophical level. Despite what they claim, they are not opposed to unfunded mandates per se.

Another hard case is going to make bad law. First Amendment considerations should be paramount, but since the military is involved, and we are in a post-9/11 world, national security and the adverse effects of the universities' stands on military recruiting may tip the balance. I can see the Supremes ruling in favor of forcing the universities to shut up and accept the monies and the recruiters, or to keep protesting and take a catastrophic hit in their budgets.

What we really need to do is elect people who can force a change in the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. How many "Rs" are in "fat chance"?