More

Elena Kagan's Military Recruitment Stance Comes Under Scrutiny

DENISE LAVOIE   05/11/10 11:51 AM ET   AP

Military Recruitment

BOSTON — In a widely circulated 2003 memo, Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan blasted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay soldiers as "a moral injustice of the first order."

Kagan was explaining to students and faculty why military recruiters were allowed on campus again after almost 25 years of being banned from the law school's main recruitment office.

She said that under a federal law known as the Solomon Amendment, the university risked jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding unless the school helped recruiters. The law allows the government to deny federal grants to schools that prohibit military recruitment on campus.

The following year, after a federal appeals court struck down the law as unconstitutional, Kagan re-imposed a ban on recruiters – a move that is now expected to be used as "anti-military" fodder by Republicans opposed to her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue was used against her during her confirmation hearing last year for her current post as U.S. solicitor general.

Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III, chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think thank, said Kagan's actions at Harvard raise important legal questions.

"(She) tried to essentially challenge the law and tried to get the Supreme Court to overrule what was a valid determination of policy by the Congress," Meese said.

Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute's board of directors, agreed that Kagan is going to have to explain her position in that case.

"She wasn't one of the strongest advocates," Levy said. "But she was certainly in the camp."

But former Harvard Law Dean Robert Clark, Kagan's predecessor, called it "foolish" to criticize Kagan on the recruitment issue.

In an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, Clark said that when Kagan was named dean, she continued a policy he started the year before, when he began allowing the military to recruit through the school's career services office again following a threat by the federal government to cut off research funding at Harvard.

Clark said Kagan wrote a public memo stating her objection to "don't ask, don't tell" and "expressing her strong view that military service is a noble and socially valuable career path that should be encouraged and open to all of our graduates."

Kagan re-imposed the ban on recruiting only after the appeals court struck down the Solomon Amendment. Within months, she lifted the ban when the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court.

"Outside observers may disagree with the moral and policy judgments made by those at Harvard Law School. But it would be very wrong to portray Elena Kagan as hostile to the U.S. military," Clark wrote. "Quite the opposite is true."

Kagan's supporters say she followed the law precisely in imposing the ban on recruiters, and again, several months later, when she lifted the ban.

"Elena Kagan does not have a single anti-military bone in her body," said Walter Dellinger, a former solicitor general in the Clinton administration who wrote a brief to the Supreme Court that was signed by 40 Harvard University professors, including Kagan.

Harvard had banned military recruiting through its career services office since 1979, when it passed an anti-discrimination policy for all employers who wanted to recruit there.

Adam Sorkin, the former president of Harvard Law School Lambda, a gay students' group, said Kagan "wasn't the big leader on this."

"All she did was follow the law at the time. When the 3rd Circuit court said the law is you don't have to allow the recruitment on campus, she didn't, and when the Supreme Court said you do, she did," said Sorkin, now a lawyer in Chicago.

Kagan was not the first at Harvard to take a stand against a military policy.

The Solomon Amendment was passed two decades after Harvard first banned military recruiters over the issue of discrimination against gays. Afterward, military recruiters were still allowed to recruit students on campus through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student group.

However, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Republicans in Congress called it a disgrace that military recruiters were being hampered in a time of war, and the Bush administration threatened to cut off funding.

In 2002, Harvard Law School relented and allowed military recruiters to use a campus office.

Kagan continued that policy after becoming dean in 2003, the same year a major lawsuit was brought by 36 law schools challenging the Solomon Amendment. Harvard did not join the lawsuit, but filed a brief siding with the other schools.

In 2004, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional. The next day, Kagan banned military recruiters from using the campus office but still allowed work through the veterans group.

Yet again, under threat of a funding cutoff, Harvard relented and Kagan allowed the recruiters to use a campus placement office.

And in 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the 3rd Circuit, finding it constitutional to deny funding to schools that do not allow military recruiting.

___

Associated Press writers Russell Contreras in Boston and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
BOSTON — In a widely circulated 2003 memo, Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan blasted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay soldiers as "a moral injustice of the first order." ...
BOSTON — In a widely circulated 2003 memo, Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan blasted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gay soldiers as "a moral injustice of the first order." ...
Filed by Nick Wing  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 133
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
03:34 AM on 05/12/2010
"(She) tried to essentially challenge the law and tried to get the Supreme Court to overrule what was a valid determination of policy by the Congress," Meese said.

That's absurd, that's what the Supreme Court is there for. If it was a valid determination of policy by Congress than the Supreme Court would acknowledge that but it has to be presented to the court to make that finding. Sadly former Attorney General Meese seems to have forgotten how the whole legal process runs...but then being a partisan hack he doesn't need to rely on facts, they just get in the way of his rhetoric.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalviper
All you need is Love!
08:18 PM on 05/11/2010
I totally agree that colleges and universities should not allow military recruiters on campus until the military ends the discriminatory DADT policy.

At my college, recruiters didn't last very long whenever they visited. Groups of protesters would stand right next to their table and shout them down until they finally gave up and left. No laws needed to kick them off campus, just good 'ol student activism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PitBull6
09:03 AM on 05/12/2010
I have no problem with private institutions taking whatever a moral stand they please as long as they accept the consequences that go with it. One cannot have cake and eat it too.

DA/DT is actually a policy based on US federal law and to ban recruiters access is to limit the military for complying with federal law (albeit, law supported and encouraged by the military itself) is akin to another school not allowing the Dept of State to recruit because it doesn't like US foreign policy.

Besides, if we're all against discrimination, should the military lift its ban on members of some gangs and extremist groups (mostly racial supremacists)?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nltldoc
06:57 PM on 05/11/2010
These Merchants of War have no moral business being on an academic campus plying their militaristic insanity to the young.....psssst.... Hey,want a Badge?
Just as objectionable is the the military services using taxpayer money's to advertise[push their power "drug"] during TV sporting events....even sponsoring high school sports.
Taxpayer's money NOT OK for birth control but A OK for militarism!?!?
AMERICAN HYPOCRISY at it's finest.
Banning Militarists from filling their ranks at academic intitutions is alright by me!
06:20 PM on 05/11/2010
Harvard banned military recruiters LONG before Kagan. My husband was in a combined ROTC unit in the early 1990's with Harvard that had to be housed at MIT because Harvard would not allow "recruiters" on campus due to their discriminatory practices. How is upholding the existing policy HER activism?! Sounds like towing the line to me! I wish she had been a bit more activist and kept the ban in place even though it would have meant losing federal dollars!
03:36 AM on 05/12/2010
Correct, Kagan was reinstating a long held school policy of not affording organizations that discriminate the opportunity to recruit on campus. Her predecessor changed that school policy.
photo
buddbo1
Progressive voter.
06:14 PM on 05/11/2010
Everyone should be hostile to recruits being on campus, trying to sign up kids to sign up to die in senseless wars as opposed to getting an education. I wouldn't want anyone bothering my kid while a student pursuing an education I'm paying for in exchange for death on foreign soil. You can find dozens of Repubs who didn't serve, but they want your child to. Start with Cheney, Rove, Lott, Demint, Blunt, etc., etc., you're be surprised to know the majority of them did not !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jonathan Gallo
05:40 PM on 05/11/2010
She followed the constitution. What is the problem now?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JessCostello
05:52 PM on 05/11/2010
Think about it this way, the Military also has a duty to recruit the best and brightest young officers it can find. ROTC and recruiters shouldn't be kicked off campus because of a conflict.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giverny
Truthiness
05:56 PM on 05/11/2010
When they discriminate one student from another, yes they should.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giverny
Truthiness
06:02 PM on 05/11/2010
How about them talking fast and loose to students, promising they won't be deployed, they will remain at home because they need the best hee at home to solidify the military base as other retire? FASSSSSSSSt and LOOOSEEEEE!~ may as well be 'used car salesman'. You know darned well if you enlist, you are going to be deployed. Kids don't always understand that.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bratcat
I don't get drunk, I get awesome.
05:22 PM on 05/11/2010
just curious, how many Harvard Law School students leave Harvard to join the military? doesn't seem like a very target rich environment. And how persuasive is an Army recruiter? Are they more powerful at persuasion then say.... a lawter from Harvard? just seems absurd.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JessCostello
05:53 PM on 05/11/2010
I had a Harvard grad as a platoon commander and lived with a UC Berkeley computer science grad. Just sayin'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giverny
Truthiness
06:07 PM on 05/11/2010
You have it right there, Jess. It's not a myth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Giverny
Truthiness
06:05 PM on 05/11/2010
When they are offered 8k sign in bonuses and a lot of promises that won't happen. Some of them want to believe they aren't being told a lie... my child came to us for the truth. Thank God.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
UtahLady
04:24 PM on 05/11/2010
Her stand on recruitment followed Harvard procedure, and the rule of law, as it existed from time to time. Just what she was supposed to do.
03:46 AM on 05/12/2010
And that point will most assuredly be brought up to counter this Republican meme. What won't change is the Republicans voting against her simply because she is Obamas pick. In a way that is liberating since the Dems won't need to do anything to get any Republicans on board because they simply won't. So you can (as they so love to say) shove this candidate right down their throats till they turn blue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PitBull6
01:30 AM on 05/13/2010
If some Repubs do that, they would probably be acting no differently than what Dems have been doing, to a bigger degree, since the 1980s, as when the current POTUS, Sec of State, and VP voted "nay" on Roberts and Alito
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YMBM
04:21 PM on 05/11/2010
Harvard Law School didn’t allow Military Recruitment for approximately 25 years. In 2003 the Harvard Law School allowed the Military to begin recruiting on campus. If the school didn’t assist in the recruitment process the Solomon Amendment would apply, hundred of millions of dollars of FederalFunding for recruitment would be jeopardized.

Mr. Kagan is a Legal Scholar as well as leads future Legal Scholar, therefore, it was within her Role-Responsibility to address a policy that do not serves the best interest of the group which she leads. In Mr. Kagan’s perspective and that of the School “Do Not Ask/and Do Not Tell” US Military rules simply didn’t go along with the Doctrine of the School Philosophy. Because the “Do Not Ask/Do Not Tell” did not ascribe Harvard Law School Philosophy, Ms. Kagan and other members within the Leadership wrote a letter denouncing the “Do Not Ask/Do Not Tell” Military Rule. As a leader you must be able to make decisions in the best interest of your group, Ms. Kagan, made a decision in the best interest of the group of people for which she was leading. Ms. Kagan wasn’t a Member of the US-Military-Army-Services; therefore, her fiduciary duties were to the institution for which she was leading. Therefore, you can’t say that Ms. Kagan is Anit-Military.

If you Republican were familiar with Fiduciary Roles and Responsibilities you wouldn’t be questioning Ms. Kagan’s actions. You should have such commitment to your Roles-Responsibilities!
04:24 PM on 05/11/2010
That is some really deep spin.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
YMBM
04:37 PM on 05/11/2010
Why would you say this is a spin? Do you not see the relationships? Who would you loyalty lie with in your family? Would it be to husband or wife or to your friends?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
UtahLady
04:25 PM on 05/11/2010
Well said and well analyzed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:04 PM on 05/11/2010
"Within months, she lifted the ban when the Supreme Court overturned the appeals court." The courts ruling was unanimous in 2006. So, she's at odds with a ruling that every liberal justice on the court found unconstitutional. That's interesting.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:08 PM on 05/11/2010
whoops, meant 'every liberal and conservative'
03:56 AM on 05/12/2010
Kagan and 54 other Harvard Law school faculty signed an amicus brief in support of a legal challenge brought by several law schools and law faculty members. It wasn't her suit.

Here's a little light reading since you since you can't seem to be bothered to find this stuff out for yourself.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2005/09/20_recruiting.php
photo
profco
Freedom- just another word for nothin left to lose
03:33 PM on 05/11/2010
Kagan was obligated to comply with the views of the Harvard faculty, which had voted on the military recruiters issue.
03:53 PM on 05/11/2010
Isn't the law a higher standard than the Harvard faculty.
04:25 PM on 05/11/2010
"crickets"
03:30 PM on 05/11/2010
I respect the military. I currently have 3 family members serving. BUT...I have seen the recruiters on high school grounds. They are not professionals and act like car dealer salesman. They should nor be allowed to go to any school period.
04:27 PM on 05/11/2010
Fourth time today i've heard the car salesman talking point.......obama must have got his talking points out early.
07:14 PM on 05/11/2010
No, just reality. You should stop listening to Rush and climb from under your rock once in awhile.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JessCostello
05:59 PM on 05/11/2010
Well they are car salesman. Trying to find young people to sign their life away to something they may very well hate is one of the worst duties you could think of. I actually think you're right though, why not have retired military people do it? I'm sure there's a good reason why.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PitBull6
08:54 AM on 05/12/2010
Having served in recruiting (but not as a recruiter), I've seen how the military puts a lot of effort into recruiting. The Army dedicates an entire major command to it, with recruiters in every county in the US and overseas. Retirees are just that, they usually have second careers (although some were brought back on active duty for other reasons since 9/11)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:56 PM on 05/11/2010
Ooooh! she didn't want military recruiters on campus. BFD.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:10 PM on 05/11/2010
I have talked to military recruiters before, they never tell you how they expect for you to kill people.
02:50 PM on 05/11/2010
They teach you all about that trade in basic training. If you are really curious, try enlisting.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JessCostello
06:02 PM on 05/11/2010
Isn't that a given in the military? Who wouldn't expect to have to kill people, especially in war time.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
01:51 PM on 05/11/2010
In my sophomore year in High School Federal Aid to education was the national debate topic. Now we see where that has gone: forcing private educational instituions to act in a way in which they don't want in order to receive Federal money. Harvard was right and if someone has an interest in the military, the church or the Boy Scouts, they can easily walk across the street and join.
photo
sven1olaf
Liberty and Justice for all!
01:55 PM on 05/11/2010
agreed. i am not as opposed to recruiters on college campuses as much as on high school campuses.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
juhar
04:16 PM on 05/11/2010
Right on. In total agreement.