Congress votes against court ruling allowing college's ban on recruiters

[bigtree]

Congress Passes Resolution Supporting Military's Discrimination in Recruiting

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=42510

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 /U.S. Newswire/ -- By a vote of 327 to 84, the House of Representatives today passed a "Sense of Congress" resolution opposing a 3rd Circuit court decision striking down the so-called Solomon Amendment.

In November the 3rd Circuit ruled that Solomon, a law which forced universities to violate non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation by allowing military recruiters on- campus access to students, was unconstitutional. The court found that the law infringed on the free speech rights of law schools that had sought to enforce their non-discrimination policies. Those policies, the schools argued, compelled them to prevent employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation from recruiting on campus. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 25 law schools and universities, and supported by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

Today's resolution states that "it is the sense of Congress that the executive branch should continue to pursue" an appeal of the 3rd Circuit decision. The resolution is legally non-binding.

"Today's so-called 'Sense of Congress' makes no sense at all," said Sharra E. Greer, Director of Law & Policy for SLDN. "The military certainly has the right -- and the responsibility -- to recruit the best and brightest, but the best and brightest include lesbian, gay and bisexual students, too. That's exactly why it should abandon 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' If Congress were truly concerned about national security, it would focus its attention on the talents of the nearly ten thousand lesbian, gay and bisexual service members who have been fired because of their sexual orientation. It is the military's ban, and not the 3rd Circuit's decision, which is contrary to our national security interests."

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), in opposing today's resolution, said that "(W)e must support our troops in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and with respect for civil rights and fundamental freedoms that are the rubric of this nation." Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) also opposed the resolution, stating that "We should be looking at ways to strengthen our military and expand our resources for winning the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." Baldwin went on to ask, "(W)hen will we have the debate about the harm caused by excluding many qualified, skilled Americans from serving in our military simply because they are gay or lesbian?"

For more information, visit http://www.sldn.org.



Now if we could just get public schools to ban the recruiters. We could start by undoing the recruiting provisions in the No Child Left behind Act.

Congress passed two major pieces of legislation that generally require local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving assistance under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)1 to give military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as they provide to postsecondary institutions or to prospective employers. LEAs are also generally required to provide students' names, addresses, and telephone listings to military recruiters, when requested.

These requirements are contained in § 9528 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. § 7908), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. No. 107-110)

These requirements are also contained in 10 U.S.C. § 503, as amended by § 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. No. 107-107), the legislation that provides funding for the nation's armed forces.

Section 9528 also requires LEAs that receive funds under the ESEA to provide military recruiters the same access to secondary school students as they generally provide to postsecondary institutions or prospective employers. For example, if the school has a policy of allowing postsecondary institutions or prospective employers to come on school property to provide information to students about educational or professional opportunities, it must afford the same access to military recruiters.

Helpfully, under FERPA, an LEA must provide notice to parents of the types of student information that it releases publicly. This type of student information, commonly referred to as "directory information," includes such items as names, addresses, and telephone numbers and is information generally not considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. The notice must include an explanation of a parent's right to request that the information not be disclosed without prior written consent.

Additionally, § 9528 requires that parents be notified that the school routinely discloses names, addresses, and telephone numbers to military recruiters upon request, subject to a parent's request not to disclose such information without written consent. A single notice provided through a mailing, student handbook, or other method that is reasonably calculated to inform parents of the above information is sufficient to satisfy the parental notification requirements of both FERPA and § 9528.

The notification must advise the parent of how to opt out of the public, nonconsensual disclosure of directory information and the method and timeline within which to do so. an LEA may provide a single notice regarding both directory information and information disclosed to military recruiters.

If an LEA does not disclose "directory information" under FERPA, then it must still provide military recruiters access to secondary students' names, addresses, and telephone listings. In addition, the LEA must notify parents that they may opt out of this disclosure. In other words, an LEA that does not disclose "directory information" must nonetheless provide a notice that it discloses information to military recruiters. The notice must be reasonably calculated to inform parents

If a parent opts out of providing directory information to third parties, the opt-out relating to name, address, or telephone number applies to requests from military recruiters as well. For example, if the opt-out states that telephone numbers will not be disclosed to the public, schools may not disclose telephone numbers to military recruiters.

Schools that do not comply with § 9528 of the ESEA could jeopardize their receipt of ESEA funds.


Q.How does § 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 amend the former requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 503?

A.Section 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 revises Title 10, Section 503(c) in several important ways:

First, the recruiting provisions now apply only to LEAs (including private secondary schools) that receive funds under the ESEA.

Second, these provisions now require access by military recruiters to students, under certain conditions, and to secondary school students' names, addresses, and telephone listings. Third, as discussed earlier, they require LEAs to notify parents of their right to opt out of the disclosure of their children's names, addresses, and telephone numbers and to comply with any such requests from the parents or the students.

Q.How are these requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 503 enforced?

A.In addition to the potential for loss of funds under ESEA noted above for failure to comply with § 9528 of the ESEA, an LEA that denies a military recruiter access to the requested information on students after July 1, 2002, will be subject to specific interventions under 10 U.S.C. § 503.

In this regard, the law requires that a senior military officer (e.g., Colonel or Navy Captain) visit the LEA within 120 days. If the access problem is not resolved with the LEA, the Department of Defense must notify the State Governor within 60 days. Problems still unresolved after one year are reported to Congress if the Secretary of Defense determines that the LEA denies recruiting access to at least two of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, etc.).

The expectation is that public officials will work with the LEA to resolve the problem.

Additionally, the Department of Defense has developed a national high school data base to document recruiter access. Presently, 95 percent of the nation's 22,000 secondary schools provide a degree of access to military recruiters that is consistent with current law.

Q.Are private schools subject to the military recruiter requirements?

A.Private secondary schools that receive funds under the ESEA are subject to § to 10 U.S.C. § 503. However, private schools that maintain a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces that is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school are not required to comply with this law.

Q.How does § 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 amend the former requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 503?

A.Section 544 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 revises Title 10, Section 503(c) in several important ways:

First, the recruiting provisions now apply only to LEAs (including private secondary schools) that receive funds under the ESEA.

Second, these provisions now require access by military recruiters to students, under certain conditions, and to secondary school students' names, addresses, and telephone listings. Third, as discussed earlier, they require LEAs to notify parents of their right to opt out of the disclosure of their children's names, addresses, and telephone numbers and to comply with any such requests from the parents or the students.

Q.How are these requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 503 enforced?

A.In addition to the potential for loss of funds under ESEA noted above for failure to comply with § 9528 of the ESEA, an LEA that denies a military recruiter access to the requested information on students after July 1, 2002, will be subject to specific interventions under 10 U.S.C. § 503.

In this regard, the law requires that a senior military officer (e.g., Colonel or Navy Captain) visit the LEA within 120 days. If the access problem is not resolved with the LEA, the Department of Defense must notify the State Governor within 60 days. Problems still unresolved after one year are reported to Congress if the Secretary of Defense determines that the LEA denies recruiting access to at least two of the armed forces (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, etc.).

The expectation is that public officials will work with the LEA to resolve the problem.

Additionally, the Department of Defense has developed a national high school data base to document recruiter access. Presently, 95 percent of the nation's 22,000 secondary schools provide a degree of access to military recruiters that is consistent with current law.

Q.Are private schools subject to the military recruiter requirements?

A.Private secondary schools that receive funds under the ESEA are subject to § to 10 U.S.C. § 503. However, private schools that maintain a religious objection to service in the Armed Forces that is verifiable through the corporate or other organizational documents or materials of that school are not required to comply with this law.


Policy Guidance - Access to High School Students and Information on Students by Military ...
Congress has passed two major pieces of legislation that generally require local educational agencies (LEAs) .. (Oct 09, 2002)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht-10-09-02a.html


Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters
Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters. Access to High School Students and Informatin on Students by Military ... (Oct 09, 2002)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht10-09-02c.html


Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters
Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters (Apr 26, 2004)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht10-09-02.html


Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Access to High School Students and Information on Students by Military Recruiters (Oct 10, 2002)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ht100902b.pdf


Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters
Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters. FERPA Model Notice for Directory Information. (Oct 09, 2002)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ht100902c.doc


Family Policy Compliance Office Hot Topics
Family Policy Compliance Office Hot Topics (May 20, 2004)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/index.html


Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters
Guidance on Access for and Disclosures to Military Recruiters UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202 Our mission is to ensure .. (Sep 15, 2004)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ht070203.doc


Joint Letter re: Military Recruiters (MSWord)
Joint Letter re: Military Recruiters (MSWord) July 2, 2003 Dear Chief State School Officer: It has come to our attention that some of your State’s local .. (Apr 02, 2004)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/doc/ht070203.doc


Joint Letter re: Military Recruiters (PDF)
Joint Letter re: Military Recruiters (PDF) July 2, 2003 Dear Chief State School Officer: It has come to our attention that some of your State’s local .. (Jul 15, 2003)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ht070203.pdf


Key Policy Letters Signed by the Education Secretary or Deputy Secretary
July 2, 2003 - Enclosures for letter to Chief State School Officers regarding release of student information to military recruiters (Jul 02, 2003)
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/030702enc.html


What You Can Do
(http://comdsd.org/publications.htm#do)

High School Student Rights
(http://comdsd.org/pdf/hs_1.pdf)
Teach Peace Make Our Schools Military-Free Zones
(http://comdsd.org/pdf/teach.pdf)

Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities
P.O. Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023
[phone]; www.projectyano.org

Students Transforming And Resisting Corporations
(http://www.starcalliance.org/)
Students of Liberation
Waging a Non-violent Struggle for Peace,
Justice & Democracy
email: peace@starcalliance
call: 414-915-4289

Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities (Project YANO)
P.O. Box 230157, Encinitas, CA 92023 - [phone]; [e-mail]

~Project YANO Sample Outreach Educational Tools
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/Yano.htm

Students Not Soldiers is a youth & student campaign against military recruitment in our schools.
Contact:-Trent Moyer at AFSC:
202-299-1050 or [e-mail]
-John Judge at the Washington Peace Center
202-234-2000
_______________________________________

STUDENT REQUEST TO REFUSE RELEASE OF CONTACT INFORMATION TO MILITARY RECRUTERS
To: Your School Superintendent

I am writing to request that you do not make my name, address, or telephone listing available for military recruitment purposes, as is provided under Paragraph 2, Subsection (a) of Section 9528 of Public Law 107-110*. I look foward to your prompt response to this letter.
Sincerely,____________________

Name:_______________________School___________

Address:_______________________________________

City/State/Zip:__________________________________
*Public Law 107-110,
The No Child Left Behind Act,
Provides that either students or parents may request that information not be released to military recruiters without written parental consent and that schools must notify parents of the option to make such a request and must comply with any request.

[bigtree]

1. Creak, creak . . .

. . . is this thing on?

[lectrobyte]

2. Yes, it's on. Everyone probably too busy with SOTU threads though

[Scooter24]

3. This is expected

That's why colleges like Harvard and Yale are working hard to cut out their reliance on NIH grants for med research. Last year I believe Yale got around $175 million, all of it in NIH grants. When the Harvard Foundation and the Yale Corp. fully privatize their university, can you imagine the profit they will make from their research? I can see drug and biotech companies lining up fast to "partner" with these private colleges and make no mistake, these colleges will benefit heavily from the private funding. NIH grants prevent Yale and Harvard from sole ownership of their research, thus they must make that information public. If say 10 years from now, researchers at the now private Yale U. discover a breakthrough treatment for cancer or HIV/AIDS, who is going to stop that school from profiting off of it?

The government and public universities will simply become "clients" to these colleges.

[bigtree]

5. hard choices

Will they opt to become profiteers or government tools? I tend to favor independence from government manipulation. There will still be levers for accountability. I think government money makes them more vulnerable to the information shield of 'national security' or other new homeland security information blocks.

[Scooter24]

6. I fully support

privatization. My point is that the government is pushing these semiprivate universities over the edge to the point that they don't realize how good a deal they have it. Yale Corp. endowments grow by about $5 million a day. My father and grandfather both graduated from Yale and fully support privatization and independence as well. I'm just one to favor open-source information especially when it concerns medical research. But if you twist their arms too hard, then I feel they won't hesitate to back out of NIH contracts and capitalize off their inventions.

I will be curious to see what happens when the these colleges continue to ban military recruiters after reaching a point where they aren't reluctant on grants. Will the NIH pull their grants? I guarantee there will be quite a stir behind some closed doors, but in the end I think the government will find that it's in the best interest of the nation to continue these grants.

[bigtree]

7. great insight

of course, there is also the push from conservatives to strip funding for colleges who engage in research projects that they disagree with, like cloning, or stem-cell research . . .

[against all enemies]

4. That's a lot of bullshit to write when all they had to write that all are

welcome in the US military.

[kodi]

8. And about allowing pix of arriving coffins at Dover AF Base? Dead silence.

I watchd the "debate" and was appalled at Rep Livingstone from Georgia who called his adversaries unpatriotic.

as if it is unpatriotic to take a stand against discrimination based upon sexual preferences?

I noted that not a single repuke mentioned the real reasoning of the court; the colleges have a right to allow onto their campuses whomever they so choose and that they chose not to allow onto their campuses an organization that discriminates against homosexuals, viz., the armed services.

[bigtree]

9. exactly

Further, imagine if they had chosen to ignore some conservative directive or law to allow some liberal institution's recruitment or mandate.