The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

I could have sworn that I had written on this issue in the past, but I can't find it... I must be thinking of comments I posted on another blog. I remember watching the arguments on C-Span back in December, and noting that the justices seemed very clear in their opinion at that time. One noted that it is highly unlikely that any student could mistake the military policy on homosexuals to be a policy endorsed by the universities where recruiters would interview prospective legal officers. The thought of a Columbia law student sitting across the table from a JAG officer and assuming that the recruiter represented the university - well, let's just say I got a kick out of that image.

So now what will these schools do? Can they turn their backs on the money, over the principle of treating gays (but not recruiters) equally? How much money is at stake?
From Bloomberg:

The federal government provides almost $35 billion a year to universities through research grants, government contracts and other sources, according to the American Association of University Professors. The financial stake is one reason almost every law school has agreed to give equal access to the military.

Emphasis mine. That's a big twinkie. The schools will allow recruiters on campus, and will bend over backwards letting students know how they feel about the recruiters and the policies of the military. And that's fine with me - let them tell the students anything they like, provided it is truthful and the recruiters are given the same recruiting opportunities that other employers are.

In fact, that's what the ruling said.

The Solomon Amdendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything. Law schools remain free under the statute to express whatever views they may have on the military's congressionally mandated employment policy, all the while retaining eligibility for federal funds.

The ruling quotes the transcript of the Solicitor General, who said in arguments that law schools

could put signs on the bulletin board next to the door, they could engage in speech, they could help organize student protests,

Also a touch of humor on the quesiton of whether students will construe the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the military as a policy endorsed by the university when the university provides recruiter access:

We have held that high school students can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so, pursuant to an equal access policy. Surely students have not lost that ability by the time they get to law school.

I hope not.

More about the case from Bloomberg:

The Defense Department has listed only three schools -- New York Law School, Vermont Law School in South Royalton, Vermont, and William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota -- as being in violation of the Solomon Amendment, according to Joshua Rosenkrantz, the lead lawyer for the challengers. All three schools are independent institutions, so their actions don't jeopardize funding for any other university departments.

At one point, the Solomon Amendment included a threat to withhold student financial aid. That provision was removed in 2000.

By the way, the full text of the Rumsfeld v FAIR ruling can be found here.

Others blogging on the ruling include BizzyBlog, who provides some interesting links at the bottom of the article.

March 7 Update: I knew that I had written about this before. I found my earlier comments on Right on the Left Coast, from Dec 6 (when arguments were heard). Comments then sound a lot like comments now. One quick excerpt:I think the final word goes to Justice Stephen Breyer: "the remedy for speech you don't like is not less speech, but more speech,"