The Supreme Court’s decision to re-evaluate the overturning of longstanding legislation that withholds government funds from universities that bar on-campus military recruiting in protest of the military’s treatment of homosexuals has brought the conflict between gay rights and the military into the academic sphere and has engendered a new politics of fear. On May 2, the Court decided to hear a case addressing issues of free speech, national defense, patriotism, gay rights, and the allocation of billions of dollars to public universities. At hand is the ultimate question of whether or not to overturn the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recent ruling. Last November, this Philadelphia lower court ruled that the First Amendment affords institutions the right to bar military recruiting in protest of the Defense Department’s policy of discrimination against homosexuals without losing federal funding. The Bush administration, however, is expressing its clear disagreement by sending Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights to the Supreme Court.

The core of the issue dates back to 1995, with the introduction of the Solomon Amendment, named after its sponsor, New York Republican Gerald Solomon. The measure barred allotment of money from the Departments of Defense, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Education, and other agencies to any college or university that blocked campus military recruiting. The main objecting voices are law schools throughout the country, virtually all of which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Over the years, modifications to the law have made it possible to deny funding to institutions if any of its units, such as a law school, make military recruiting even a little bit difficult. The increased enforcement of this law after the attacks of September 11th puts nearly every university with such a policy in an awkward position if it truly supports such a philosophy of anti-discrimination.

The Bush administration argues that because institutions are still free to make their own choice, their rights are not actually being violated. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the issue represents a departure from the conventional application of the First Amendment. The lower court’s ruling is consistent with the understanding of freedom of protest and speech. Even the Bush administration’s counter-argument does not question that application. Rather, it argues the case on a technicality, ignoring the obvious point that the refusal of federal funds is not a choice for many institutions. The recent development indicates that the Supreme Court feels this application of the Bill of Rights needs to be re-evaluated. The act of “re-evaluating” what seems to be an obvious and clear application of freedom of speech and protest in public spheres is ominously foreboding.

The most alarming aspect of the measure is its infringement on the realm of academia, which usually dissociates itself from the government’s application of politics. The world of intellectual exploration allows the examination and acceptance of diverse viewpoints. By forcing an institution to endorse the views of a particular military organization, the national government is curtailing the intellectual freedom of academic institutions.

Even more frightening is that the legislation was implemented with exactly that goal in mind.

The amendment's co-sponsor, Representative Richard Pombo, Republican of California, said the measure would "send a message over the wall of the ivory tower of higher education." The message, he said, is that "starry-eyed idealism comes with a price.” The goal of higher education is to develop progressive thinkers through providing both the freedom and the resources to pursue what may initially seem to be “starry” ideas. Contrary to the entrepreneurial freedom of thought that drives this nation, the Solomon Amendment appears to intend to curtail precisely those liberties The world of academia should remain as separate as possible from the politics of war that engulf a particular country. Otherwise, we run the risk of indoctrination by confining the best minds in a country to the propaganda of a particular administration.

The acceleration of the implementation of the Solomon Amendment after the attacks of 9/11 implies that it is spurred by a politics of fear rather than a clear evaluation of constitutionality. This appears to be another instance of providing national security at the expense of intellectual freedom. The irony of the situation is that in the process of pursuing defense in order to preserve cherished American freedoms, the military is endorsing their destruction.