There are interpretations of the US Constitution that think of it as a living document and capable of interpretation in the context of a changing world. Other interpretations, not so much.

So to use the George Bush definition of “strict constructionist” as reported by wikipedia:

On the campaign trail in 2000, for example, President George W. Bush promised to appoint “strict constructionists in the mold of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

it’s their own damn fault. And I agree, it is superficial bullshit to worry about birth locale instead of qualification and merit. the US Constitution does tend to be full of surprises… and with the historical xenophobia of the Constitution now potentially disqualifying the Republican candidate, maybe America will now address that issue.

which is the point where I start laughing hysterically.

We don’t need to resort to ridiculous extremes to argue a point - there are plenty of objectionable military policies that actually exist. For example, I don’t support the use of torture and I think Gitmo is an abomination. There are any number of reasons to ban military recruiters from a campus as a protest to military policy.

Also, any violation of human rights effects me. It makes the world a more dangerous place for liberty and it places everyone’s rights in jeopardy.

Which is why, now that VLS has done what it could to fight this issue in the courts, I think it would be wise to take the money and do something productive with it. Especially when that amount of money could accomplish so much.

It isn’t simply about students having less debt - it is about making a difference in the number of students who can work in the public service field. It is about attracting talented students to that tiny (although beautiful) town in rural Vermont. It is about making a real difference, which is what I had understood the mission of the school to be - to contribute to the public interest field by turning out talented and dedicated graduates ready to confront threats to the public interest.

I think it would be subversively effective to now take the government’s money and turn it into scholarships and loan assistance to support the fight for equality. I think it would recognize that there is a lot of work to be done, especially after the stunning loss at the USSC. To not take the money at this point feels like giving up, acting as if there is nothing else to be done besides make an empty gesture of self-sacrifice. That is how atrocities tend to take hold, like you point out, when people give up the fight.

I see VLS as essentially giving up the fight by continuing to ban recruiters because they are giving up the resources that could otherwise be used to keep fighting.

I would applaud the dean if he spoke at a campus protest of the recruiters if they arrived. He would be truly ’speaking truth to power’ in that context. Especially if he was proud to announce how the money has been spent to support the ongoing fight for liberty and justice for all.

And yes, if the recruiters were banned due to opposition to an environmental policy, I would think it “silly,” particularly given the excellence the school is known for in environmental law. How ridiculous to deny countless students the opportunity to involve themselves in that ongoing fight, just to make a rhetorical point.

Sorry, I commented with the wrong link in my earlier post. This link is good.