Discrimination Favors Government Interests

The option to live your live the way you see fit is a right granted to the citizens of this country.
This right can also be applied to public institutions, such as a university, which are given the right to refuse on-campus military recruitment.
However, this right does come with a catch: A public university cannot refuse on-campus military recruitment without the fear of losing federal funding.
The threat of an attack on a school’s financial stability is a cheap way for an institution such as the military to swindle its way into public schools, especially if it will not abide by the rules and guidelines schools try to maintain.
Such rules and guidelines include equal-opportunity employment and opportunity to participate in campus organizations, which is expected by any company trying to uphold its on-campus presence. The military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy for homosexuals is also an example of this: allowing individuals to practice certain ways of life without oppression through omission.
For this reason, the military’s choice to refuse university guidelines by ignoring equal opportunity employment, universities should be allowed to forbid on-campus military recruitment without fear of reprisal.
The military shouldn’t be an exception to equal-opportunity employment. It’s just another example of the government making exceptions to its own laws when it best suits them.
The purpose of a military is to protect the State, but it makes no sense hiring people to protect ideals that the hiring process itself violates.
The military is one of the biggest and most widespread institutions this country has.
With that in mind, the armed forces should be organized in such a way that it can accept everyone regardless of an individual’s choice to live his or her life a particular way.
Rejecting people because of their choice of how to live their life represents a close-minded approach that shouldn’t be displayed nationwide.
But what makes on-campus recruitment so special? Looking at UC Irvine, for example, there really is no heavy on-campus recruitment.
There are the occasional ROTC tables placed along Ring Road, but nothing so obtrusive that it can actually be considered military recruitment. In fact, most tabling that does occur doesn’t actually have any active recruiting, meaning recruiters wait for students to approach them and not the other way around.
While it’s true that additional active recruitment would persuade more individuals to consider a career in the armed forces, having uniformed soldiers walking around campus and pressuring students is not the type of environment expected when thinking of university life.
It’s already bad enough with random people or groups chasing after students asking for donations and signatures when all someone wants to do is get from one class to the next.
Adding more of that to this campus doesn’t seem like a practical choice, especially if that addition does not plan to follow guidelines set by the university.
However, there are other viable options. Once again UCI is an excellent example. University Center is right across from campus and in fact has a recruitment station set up.
This is a practical approach to having a recruiting establishment that has the ability to have an influence on a campus without being obtrusive. In addition, while being off of campus, the recruiting station is set to run their business in whatever way they see fit, without having to worry about violating school policies.
The ability to live your life freely and in the manner that you choose is what this government is fighting to protect.
But how long could ideals like equal-opportunity employment really last when one of the biggest governmental organizations refuses to abide by it.
If the government can slip past the rules, what will stop its citizens from doing the same?

Send comments to eic@newuniversity.org. Include your name, year and major.