Well, not really. As is usually the case with Supreme Court decisions, this one will require further reading to get my little head around, but since it's at least tangentially related to my two latest posts, I thought I'd link to it.


Blogger Evan Jones  said...

When you do finally get you head around this one, I think you'll find that it really has nothing to do with gays beyond a desire to show solidarity with them. For a law school to make such preposterous claims about free speech is a bad sign for the legal profession. The school remains perfectly free to express its dislike of Army policies. It does not, however, have the right to block recruitment, as that has constitutional standing. Thoreau, of course, had a policy of not supporting the war in Mexico, which was well and good up to the point of refusing to pay taxes, or a tax at any rate. His refusal to do that was an act of civil disobedience, not the claim of some inherent right. The law school is free to disobey as well, free to spend its night in jail as it were, or to give up its federal funding. Even then, however, it seems clear that a requirement for equal access would still exist. The whole thing strikes me as fighting a ticket for running a red light on the grounds that your personal policy favors freedom from restrictions.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006  

Post a Comment  |  Back to Hey Paul.