On-Campus Military Recruiting Draws Ire of Cardozo Gay Community

Students Protest While Administration Waffles

A decision by the Cardozo School of Law administration to permit the military to interview on campus despite its allegedly discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards homosexuals has sparked heated responses from concerned students. "Don't ask, don't tell" has been condemned as overt discrimination by almost every gay and lesbian group in the nation, effectively blackballing the JAG (Judge Advocate General) corps which runs recruitment sessions at law schools nationwide.

On-campus military recruitment has never surfaced before as an issue at Cardozo because the law school, taking its lead from the AALS (American Association of Law Schools), has never granted campus access to any discriminatory recruiting body, including the military. What has changed this time, however, is the military's arsenal; the simple request of previous years, is now accompanied by the threat of Congress' recently adopted Solomon Amendments.

Simply put, a university which closes its campus to military access, according to the amendments, jeopardizes its ability to qualify for a number of federal financial assistance programs which provide aid directly to students, specifically federal loan and grant programs. As a result, Cardozo, along with the AALS and schools throughout the country, now face a much tougher decision.

Word of JAG's request to appear on October 21 at Cardozo to conduct its recruitment program eventually spread to the student body, which, due to the Jewish holidays and resulting tight schedule, found it difficult but essential to coordinate an effort in opposition. Concerned that the administration was unaware that "anyone really cared," GALLSA (Gay and Lesbian Law Student Association) representative Jessica Selinkoff spearheaded the group that resolved to "show them that they did."

GALLSA began by presenting a petition bearing approximately 200 Cardozo student signatures to the administration. The petition expressed student opposition to the military and its presence on campus. The group then turned to the SBA (Student Bar Association) to enlist its support in adopting a resolution defining more clearly its position and recommendations to the law school administration. Such a resolution was passed, making the SBA's opposition to on-campus military recruiting official.

Once these preliminary measures were taken, GALLSA convened a meeting with Cardozo Deans Paul Verkuil, Michael Hirt, and Ellen Chrerick to discuss immediate action. Within days, a group of 15 students, including SBA members, gay and lesbian students, and other interested parties met with the deans to address the situation with a view to two questions: Should Cardozo allow JAG on campus? And if so, what steps could the administration take to minimize the effects of such a potentially harmful decision?

As in past years, the administration turned to the AALS code to resolve the first issue. Whereas previous years found the AALS supportive of a denial of the military's request to visit the campus, adoption of the Solomon Amendments has changed the scenario. An AALS decision to continue its policy would jeopardize the funds of many institutions that would feel compelled to comply with their suggestion. On the other hand, its original objection to the military's on-campus presence remains intact. AALS' compromise maintained its commitment to non-discrimination and the resulting recommendation to refuse campus access to military recruiters, but deemed an alternative decision "excusable non-compliance" consistent with its ideological policy.

Many other law schools, among them Harvard Law School and NYU Law School, chose to continue their denial policy toward JAG and live with the financial consequences of this decision. Cardozo did not.

"The law school administration is not happy about the situation; we feel our hands are tied," admitted a concerned Michael Hirt, Associate Dean at Cardozo Law School. Allowing the military to recruit on campus is technically a violation of school policy, because Cardozo's equal treatment policy ensures the maintenance of a hostility-free environment for students of all persuasions (sexual orientation is included under this clause) and equal access to all of the institution's programs.

Dean Hirt acknowledged that the military's very presence might create what gay and lesbian students would deem a "hostile environment;" and that under normal circumstances, he "does not invite employers who discriminate in their hiring on campus. This includes, of course, employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation."

Additionally, while Cardozo's Center for Professional Development might encourage equal treatment, by allowing the military to recruit on campus, it in effect prevented gay and lesbian student participation in at least one facet of its recruitment program.

GALLSA and its supporters, however, seem even more concerned that allowing JAG on campus in effect sends a message to all that the administration has created what Selinkoff deemed, "a two-tiered system of enforcement of its non-discrimination policy; most groups are fully protected, gay and lesbians are only semi-protected." Those protesting understood the necessity to allow JAG to recruit students who wished to join, but felt that doing so on campus was uncalled for. In the words of one GALLSA member, not forcing the military to conduct its interviews off campus in a local hotel, for example, almost seemed like a "donation on the part of Cardozo" to an institution that espoused an unacceptable policy.

The other major issue at the faculty-student meeting involved techniques that Cardozo would take to ameliorate the effects of their decision. AALS recommended that any institution that chooses to exercise "excusable non-compliance" take at least some action designed to minimize the damage caused.

The GALLSA group, taking their lead from AALS, proposed a number of specific items that would accomplish this goal. Thematically, the administration's compliance with JAG's request had to be tempered with a clear expression of its opposition to the decision they were forced to make. The administration complied with requests to place disclaimers on all military applications denoting that JAG's presence on campus was not by choice, but by pressure from the Solomon Amendments. Military recruiters were also set apart from other on-campus recruiting organizations and no refreshments were provided for JAG representatives.

Some of the agitated students, nevertheless, point to the administration's decision to collect resumes and schedule interviews for JAG's recruitment session as evidence that Cardozo is not fully committed to the amelioration effort. Administrators attribute the above decision to mere oversight, claiming that, in the future, such additional efforts can be implemented, provided that the Solomon Amendments don't preclude such action.

The Cardozo administration, albeit sympathetic to the position of GALLSA and its supporters, defended its decision by claiming that "like most schools, we grudgingly allowed the military on campus because ultimately we felt that we didn't have a choice." Associate Dean Hirt pointed to the fact that by denying JAG campus access, the apparently "sensitive" option, would in fact jeopardize the very same student body that the administration would be aiming to protect.

The funding threatened by the Solomon Amendments includes three types of federal grants: Perkins Loan Program money, work study funding, and the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunities Grant. The important point, stressed Hirt, is that student moneys are threatened. If so, standing up for gay and lesbian students would at the same time be a display of insensitivity to the rest of the student body -- leaving the administration with an even more difficult question than money v. ideological issue.

Just how much money is being threatened? The answer to this question lies at the base of GALLSA's argument. Cardozo has never followed through on an AALS recommendation to properly estimate the amount of financial aid in question. Cardozo administrators chalk this up to insufficient data. Selinkoff, however, deems this inexcusable.

The estimation problem that the administration is experiencing results from a legal ambiguity in the Solomon Amendments. If the three areas of funding were to only be taken away from the law school, Hirt speculated that the estimated loss of no more than $10,000 would probably tilt the scale in favor of GALLSA's request, at least in his opinion. Yeshiva University's officials, however, maintain that it is possible, under the Solomon Amendments, to disqualify the entire university from receipt of these funds making the stakes too high.

Selinkoff contends that the administration's only real estimate effectively amounts to an admission that, to them, "their no-discrimination policy is not worth $10,000. The needs and rights of gay and lesbian students are a very large weight on the scale. It would take an extremely large loss of funding to justify violating the school's non-discrimination policy and jeopardizing the rights of the schools gay and lesbian students -- certainly $10,000 doesn't outweigh those rights."

A follow-up meeting is scheduled for November 23 to discuss GALLSA concerns and administrative plans for future considerations.

Lurking beneath the surface of the current debate are the still unhealed wounds inflicted just four years ago. At that time, Cardozo administrators had confronted a similar issue when gay and lesbian students at Cardozo responded to a visible campaign to eliminate their student group. When asked whether that played a role in the recent debate, Dean Hirt acknowledged that, "the issue and history resonated through this dispute," but that "there was no precise link."

These issues confront many institutions, but due to Yeshiva's historically religious character, matters of this sort become more complicated. The complication, in this case, has disturbed not only students but administrators as well. One member of the Center for Professional Development, the branch of the administration that dealt with this particular issue directly understood the quandary that Dean Hirt described. This official concluded, however, that "the bottom line is if this were any other group being discriminated against, it would not have been tolerated."