Supreme Court to Universities: If You Accept Federal $, You Have to Accept the Strings Attached

The point was made unanimously:

Court Upholds Campus Military Recruiting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that colleges that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus, despite university objections to the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gays.

Justices rejected a free-speech challenge from law schools and their professors who claimed they should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances.

….. Many universities forbid the participation of recruiters from public agencies and private companies that have discriminatory policies.

If the schools feel so strongly about the issue, they should simply have given up their federal aid so they could do as they please. But no, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too:

The court’s decision upholds a law that requires colleges that take federal money to accommodate recruiters.

….. College leaders have said they could not afford to lose federal help, some $35 billion a year.

Too bad, folks. If you want to be free of federal interference in such matters, you’ll have to do what Hillsdale College in Michigan did (relevant info is at the bottom third of the link). Some institutions, like Harvard, with its $26 billion endowment (last item at link), could certainly afford to do that. Unless and until they are willing to break free of government constraints, universities’ complaints about conditions imposed on them in exchange for aid are empty.
_________________________________

UPDATE — Other Blog Reax:

• Strata-Sphere — “This is an enormous blow to the anti-war folks who have tried to close their academic fantasy world off from the reality they exist in America.” ….. “So, let’s see how firmly these colleges believe in their principles. Are they willing to sacrifice money for principle? Don’t count on it.”
• Harry Callahan at Ace’s place — “The fact that it also will enrage all manner of leftist college professors and moonbats is icing on the cake. Excuse me while I go have a celebratory cup of coffee.”
• Ann Althouse has effusive praise for Justice Roberts — “I want to express my deepest thanks to Chief Justice Roberts for gathering the Justices onto one clearly written opinion. There is no blather or hedging in the prose. He has obviously taken great pains to put every sentence in plain English. He deals with all the precedents, handling most of the cases in one or two crisp sentences. You may not appreciate how beautiful this thinking and writing is, but I do, and I think generations of law students will.”
• Michelle Malkin has great quotes from the opinions and great comments from e-mailers.
• ScotusBlog — “The ruling rejected all of the law schools’ First Amendment claims.”
• QandO Blog — “it seems those who oppose it will have difficulty blaming the decision on the ‘conservative court.’”
• IowaVoice — “Aid and grants are not a right, they are at the discretion of those giving out the aid. If the recipient does something the donor doesn’t like, then the donor has every right to stop donating.”
• Stop the ACLU can’t resist a snarky comment — “It is a bit suprising that Ginsburg voted with the majority in this. One has to wonder if she was actually awake for the vote.”
• Others weighing in — Sister Toldjah, ACSBlog, and Volokh.

UPDATE 2: Outside the Beltway notices that a number of people believe that “…. the unanimous court ruled that Congress could simply order schools to admit recruiters even if the schools were not receiving federal funds.” UPDATE 2A: Atlas Blogged clarified this for me: “…… this decision does not threaten that schools will have to accept recruiters even if they do not receive federal funds. This decision says very clearly that if they want to ban recruiters, they can do so by refusing the money. SCOTUS simply noted that the only reason this is an option for the schools is because of the way Congress has chosen to structure its current attempt to raise an army, and that Congress could in the future pass legislation that would change the recruitment method to something that was not linked to funding… something the schools could not ban.”

UPDATE 3: Protein Wisdom — “Finally, a victory for the kind of ‘diversity’ that truly matters. The decision is a defeat for the anti-military holdover contingent among academics who have held (disingenuously, in my opinion), that they were simply promoting a form of free speech by excluding the ‘intolerant’ speech-act of the military……”

UPDATE 4: Taranto in Best of the Web: “Under current law, this claim of “coercion” is nonsense. Yale takes taxpayer money, which comes with strings attached; but it is free to pass up the money if its principles demand. And of course the university is free to show its contempt for America in other ways, for instance by admitting former Taliban officials. The worst of which the Yale and other faculties can complain is bribery: The government is offering them money to act against the professed principles. Will any institution of higher education respond to the Rumsfeld ruling by declining to accept federal funds? The answer to that question will show us all how much those principles are worth.”