JAG CENTRAL

Regarding the Solomon Amendment case, FAIR v. Rumsfeld, that will be heard at the Supreme Court next term (see related post here), I've been engaging in a debate with an anonymous commenter regarding the merits of the case. You can find the entire debate on the HaloScan comment page here. Below is my response to some of this person's arguments:

1. "Indeed, lots of people are STILL being rejected by JAG!"
- This statistic has to be put into context. Sure, the Army rejects 3 out of every 4 applicants for active duty service in the JAG Corps. However, this is not comparable to other big firms, which typically reject 10 or more applicants for every one job. Because of a lack of the best and brightest candidates, JAG has to be less selective.

2. "Recruiters know they are probably wasting their time at top schools."
- I would submit that if we get one recruit a year from Yale or Stanford, every penny getting that recruit is money well spent. The experience a top school graduate lends to the service you simply can't put a price tag on. Don't even begin to argue that a graduate from Ohio Podunk University is the same lawyer as a Harvard grad. It simply isn't true.

3. "Everyone who wants to join JAG can join JAG."
- This misses the entire point of military recruiting. Over 80% of recruits for any military specialty, including JAG, are not the type who wanted to be a soldier since a kid. Most recruits sign on the dotted line after a lengthy decision-making process of costs and benefits, and it is usually a recruiter that begins this negotiating process. Indeed, it is often the recruiter who, by their presence in the community, plants the seed of service.

4. "Schools have an interest in keeping everything it offers open to all of its students."
- Yes, they have an interest in keeping military recruiters off campus. No, this does not rise to the level of declaring a federal law unconstitutional. You can make whatever argument you want that the Solomon Amendment is bad policy or bad law - I might go that far with you. However, making the leap to holding it unconstitutional is a bridge too far.