Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan visits with Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania Thursday. (AP/Alex Brandon)
by David G. Savage and James Oliphant
A controversy over military recruiting at Harvard Law School while Elena Kagan was dean may say less about her views on the military than it does about her strong belief in equal rights for gays and lesbians, one of the foremost unsettled issues before the Supreme Court.
In a series of memos to the faculty and students, Kagan described the military's policy of excluding openly gay men and women as "a profound wrong -- a moral injustice of the first order."
"It is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community because some of our members cannot, while others can, devote their professional careers to their country," she wrote in 2003, shortly after becoming dean.
By contrast, "the Law School remains committed to the principle of equal opportunity for all persons, without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," she said.
It marks one of the few times during her career in which she voiced a strong and deeply held view on a matter of legal controversy. It is also one of the issues sure to come before the high court in the years ahead.
T
The Constitution guarantees all people "equal protection of the laws," but the Supreme Court has not ruled squarely on whether official discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation violates the equal-protection clause. In 2003, the court struck down a Texas law that made private sex between gays a crime, but it did so by ruling that law violated the rights to liberty and privacy.
The justices could be forced to rule on the equal-protection issue if California's ban on gay marriage is struck down by a lower court. Or the same issue could arise in state cases over adoptions, child custody or public benefits for same-sex couples. It is also possible the court could agree to hear a constitutional challenge to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy that was adopted by Congress.
Kagan's words suggest she may lean in favor of at least some of those challenges, though last year she responded to a question from senators by saying, "There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
Since her nomination this week, Kagan's personal life as an unmarried woman has been a topic of discussion in some quarters, even as Republicans and Democrats have said it is not relevant to her confirmation. In response to questions, the White House said she is not a lesbian, and friends have come forward to say she is a heterosexual.
In 2002, the year before Kagan became dean, Harvard Law School joined others around the country in agreeing to give military recruiters full access to students through the campus Office of Career Services.
Prior to that time, Harvard had a compromise policy in place. Since 1979, most U.S. law schools said they would not permit employers to recruit at their schools if they discriminated based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Because Pentagon officials would not and could not sign a pledge saying they did not discriminate based on sexual orientation, they could not meet students in the campus placement office. However, students interested in the military could meet with military recruiters through the Harvard Law School Veterans Assn. elsewhere on campus. At other campuses, law students met military recruiters at the ROTC offices.
The Clinton administration viewed this compromise approach as acceptable. But in December 2001, the Bush administration told law schools they were violating the Solomon Amendment, a law that said school officials may not "prohibit or in effect prevent" military recruiting on campus, and that doing so could lead to a cutoff of federal funding for the entire university. Though Harvard, Yale, USC and other law schools maintained they were not violating the law, they agreed to the Pentagon's demand.
Then-Harvard Law Dean Robert Clark told the faculty and students he saw "no reasonable alternative" to going along with the government's order. In 2003, when Kagan became dean, she continued the policy of permitting military recruiters, while at the same time expressing "deep distress" at the exclusion of gay and lesbian students.
But when the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Pentagon's policy unconstitutional, Kagan announced that the law school was returning to its former policy of forbidding military recruiters from using the school's placement office.
Kagan and a group of Harvard professors signed a friend-of-the-court-brief in the case saying the school was not violating the Solomon Amendment because it was not preventing or prohibiting military recruiting.
The legal challenge ended in crushing defeat at the Supreme Court in 2006. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. upheld the Pentagon's enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. The next day, Kagan sent an e-mail to the faculty and students saying she was disappointed by the decision but would permit military recruiters to use the placement office.
Her view remained unchanged, however. On Oct. 1, 2008, shortly before President Obama's election and Kagan's nomination as solicitor general, she sent a final e-mail to students and the faculty restating her view.
"I believe discrimination against gays and lesbians seeking to enter military service is wrong, both unwise and unjust.... I look forward to the time when all of our students can pursue any career path they desire, including the path -- as deeply honorable as any I can imagine -- of devoting their professional lives to the defense of this country," she wrote.





Comments
So Kagan's strong stand in FAVOR of discriminating against the army is spun by the Democratic Party (Swamp edition) as a "strong stand" for "rights" and against "discrimination"!!!!
Kagan loves discrimination. Discrimination against groups she (and the Harvard faculty) dislikes,
Posted by: Equal time | May 14, 2010 8:51 AM
Countdown to "HHH" filling 90% of the thread using different post names and copy/pasting exactly the same drivel he's copy/pasted every day for the past for years, in 5...4...3...2...1... ding, ding, ding
Posted by: John E | May 14, 2010 9:17 AM
".. discriminating against the army..." is an oxymoron, told by an idjit. The Army gets whatever it wants in this country. You remember that great Republican, President Eisenhower, that 5-Star General, declaring prophetically: " Beware of the Military-Industrial Complex !! " Do you think he was discriminating in his comments about our military !!?
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | May 14, 2010 9:48 AM
Kagan hates Freedom of Speech also. As she wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Stevens,
“Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
In other words, the government, presumably staffed by Kagan and her soulmates, will determine if your speech is "valuable" enough to be allowed.
And as we've seen with the Canadian speech tribunals, this means in practice that the only speech Kagan will allow is speech she agrees with.
Memo to Kagan: The Bill of Rights guarantees "Freedom of Speech". Period. Try reading it sometime.
Posted by: Equal time | May 14, 2010 11:35 AM
"JohnE": So funny & true. I always feel like I'm going to hurl on my keyboard when I read his posts. Now that Mark is gone, maybe he can go back to dominating the SWAMP by posting all comments under assumed names. Those were the good old days....
Posted by: Big HHH | May 14, 2010 8:53 PM
Jews, Catholics and SCOTUS
It’s long past time for America to consider the heretical idea of amending the Constitution and make new openings on the Supreme Court term-limited if not elective offices.
When the Founding Fathers devised the Constitution in the late eighteenth century, life expectancy at birth, thanks to rampant diseases, was a mere 24 years although, depending on where one lived, it could range up to 60 in New England, 45 in the Middle Colonies and 35 in the South. Those figures are according to Encyclopedia.com.
Averaging the 3 locales, a person could expect to live 46.7 years, with a little bit of luck. Today, thanks to the marvels of modern science and medicine, Americans can reasonably expect to live well into their seventies and beyond and late eighties and nineties are no longer unusual.
There is no possible way that James Madison . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1683)
Posted by: Berlet98 | May 16, 2010 1:15 AM
I think, " Berlet98 ", those figures may be different for African-, Hispanic- and Asian-American citizens, in terms of life-expectancies, in present day America. As for term limits, I find a mixture of experienced and non-, or little-, experienced, persons, to be much better equipped to handle complex problems, in the course of legislating, judging and executing. Term limits are all ready in place, they are called elections and they work. How do you think President Obama and Vice-President Biden were elected, through term limits!! The electorate put a limit on the term of Republican-Libertarian-T.Baggers' incompetency and malfeasance !! They realized that the 8-year term of the Bush&Cheney disaster, had to have limits and limit it, they did !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | May 17, 2010 9:15 AM