Tag Archives: recruiting

Joint Statement of Opposition to the Presence of Military Recruiters at OCU Law

The following is a statement issued by NLG Law Student Chapter at the Oklahoma City University of Law in Oklahoma, City, OK in opposition to military recruiters on their campus (original text located at Student Chapter of NLG at Oklahoma City University of Law website):

JOINT STATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO THE

PRESENCE OF MILITARY RECRUITERS AT OCU LAW:

To the administration of Oklahoma City University and Oklahoma City University School of Law:

We issue this statement as concerned student and community organizations out of our collective concern over the presence of military recruiters on campus at OCU.

Our concern is that the US military engages in discrimination through its so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This policy was initiated in 1993 by Democratic President Bill Clinton. This policy, unlike previous policies, allowed gay people to serve in the military as long as they were silent about the fact that they were gay.

From Moral Assaults, to Criminalization, to the stigma of Mental Illness, to the prohibition on marriage and adoption rights, LGBT Americans have long suffered in our nation. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is but another injury in the long line of continuing abuse. The policy “imposes upon gay soldiers the requirement that they proclaim a false straight identity to the world, either by remaining silent in the face of a persistent ‘heterosexual presumption’ or by actively claiming a heterosexual identity as the only realistic method of complying with the policy.” Instead of preventing discrimination, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” serves to mask discrimination under the guise of “political correctness” and oppressive silence.

In many jurisdictions, gay people are not protected against discrimination in employment. Statewide protections against workplace discrimination exist in only fourteen states; in the rest of the country, employees fired for being gay have no legal recourse unless they work in a locality with its own anti-discrimination ordinance. Even though the vast majority of Americans are opposed to such discrimination, the United States Congress has still failed to enact the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), which would make it illegal to fire, or refuse to hire, someone because of his or her sexual orientation.

Unlike many corporations and private institutions, OCU has taken the progressive step of drafting a Non-Discriminatory Policy which states:

The School of Law provides its students and graduates with equal opportunities to obtain employment, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, handicap or disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status. In furtherance of this policy, the law school communicates to each employer to whom it furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement functions the school’s firm expectation that the employer will observe the principle of equal opportunity.

However, federal law prohibits OCU from following its own policies (or Regulation 6.19 of the American Association of Law Schools), since the Solomon Act provides that no federal funds shall be provided to any college or university that denies campus access to military recruiters. Recognizing the conflicting interests that Oklahoma City University faces in providing affordable education to students of limited means (through federal financial aid that is contingent on compliance with Solomon) and its stated desire to provide a non-discriminatory equal-opportunity environment, we call for the following ameliatory steps in lawful peaceful resistance to the unconstitutional aims of the Solomon Act: 1. We call for Oklahoma City University to implement a campus-wide “disclaimer policy” for the posting of military recruitment literature on campus. Currently OCU law School requires a disclaimer for all military recruitment literature posted at the law school, but OCU Student services (serving the campus as a whole) does not require such a disclaimer. We believe that it is time to close this loophole in school policy. Military recruitment literature should have a disclaimer on it, no matter where it is posted on campus. 2. We call for the administration to join other law schools across the country in opposing the Solomon Act through litigation. The Act has already been found unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds in other locales. Given this persuasive authority, OCU should seek similar relief in this Circuit. 1. We call for Congress to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a policy that is destructive to the principles of our Constitution, the fabric of our communities, and the lives of LGBT students, service members, and Americans. We also call for Congress to repeal the Solomon Act because it is unconscionable to force higher education to engage in discrimination.
List of Organizations that have officially endorsed this statement: National Lawyers Guild, OCU Law School chapter

Lesbian and Gay Law Students Association of OCU

Red River Democracy Project

Cimarron Alliance Foundation of Oklahoma

Oklahoma Committee for Conscientious Objectors

Oklahoma City Code Pink

Oklahoma City Women in Black

Tulsa Peace Fellowship

The Peace House

Green Party of Oklahoma

Oklahoma County Greens (GPOK local chapter)

Green Country Greens (GPOK local chapter)

Rural Oklahoma Greens (GPOK local chapter)

10 U.S.C. § 654 states in part:
(b) POLICY.-A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that-
(A) such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B) such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion or intimidation;
(D) under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.
(2) That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual . . . .
(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

Tobias Barrington Wolff, Article, Political Representation and Accountability Under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell , 89 I OWA L. R EV. 1633 , 1637-38 (2004).

See Oklahoma City University School of Law Student Handbook 1 (2003-04).

See generally 32 C.F.R. § 216.3 (2005).

See e.g. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld, 390 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2003), See also Burt v. Rumsfeld , 2005 WL 273205 (D. Conn. 2005).

Military Recruiting FAQ

Military Recruiting FAQ–A Consumer’s – Please Print, Post & Share

Military Recruiting FAQ–A Consumer’s
Please Print, Post & Share (pdf [pdfs/RecruitmentFAQ.pdf])

If you or someone you know is thinking about joining the U.S. military, here are some points to consider before you “sign on the dotted line.”

1. Military enlistments are potentially unlimited in length.
The box below cites “fine print” from the back of the first page of a military enlistment “contract.” It shows that, despite the stated length of enlistment (usually four years), recruits can be kept in the military indefinitely, or called back from the reserves many years later, especially as part of the “war on terror,” which has no foreseeable end. This is what’s been called the “back door draft.” Thousands have already been subjected to it. Recruiters typically neglect to mention these sections to potential enlistees.
From The Military Enlistment/Re-enlistment “Contract” (DD Form 4/1)
(NOTE: The sections below are on the BACK of the contract):
9. FOR ALL ENLISTEES OR REENLISTEES: Many laws, regulations, and military customs will govern my conduct and require me to do things a civilian does not have to do. The following statements are not promises or guarantees of any kind. They explain some of the present laws affecting the Armed Forces which I cannot change but which Congress can change at any time. c. In the event of war, my enlistment in the Armed Forces continues until six (6) months after the war ends, unless my enlistment is ended sooner by the President of the United States. b. If I am a member of a Reserve Component of an Armed Force at the beginning of a period of war or national emergency declared by Congress, or if I become a member during that period, my military service may be extended without my consent until six (6) months after the end of that period of war. c. As a member of a Reserve Component, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, I may be required to serve on active duty (other than for training) for the entire period of the war or emergency and for six (6) months after its end. See the full form at: www.dior.whs.mil/forms/DD0004.pdf

2. Recruiters’ promises are often false, or not kept. In our GI counseling work, “My recruiter lied” is the most common complaint in our thousands of calls. The reasons recruiters often lie are not hard to find: they are under tremendous and relentless pressure to meet recruiting goals. During wartime, many young people and their families are uneasy about the risks of military service.?Numerous journalistic reports have exposed recruiter misrepresentations. Several such reports, available on the internet, are listed below:

• A 1999 Atlanta TV news report, for which Quaker House was a major source, uncovered systematic misrepresentation by recruiters The reports were titled, “GI Lies” and are at:www.fox5atlanta.com/iteam/gilies.html
• A former Marine recruiter, Chris White, declared that “Recruiters lie about college benefits, duty station assignments, veterans’ benefits, and countless other aspects of the military in order to convince their clients to sign.”www.objector.org/insider.html
• Recruiters in Dallas, “arranged with a diploma mill to print required high school diplomas for recruits with GEDs.”; some profited personally from the practice. www.ire.org/contest/past/99winnerslist.html
• Recruiters for the Indiana National Guard falsified scores of physical exams to sign up recruits who were physically unqualified. in 2002 The Indianapolis Star ran a series of articles exposing this scandal.

3. Military service does not pay off in future job earnings. Recruiters promise training that will lead to better jobs in civilian life. But several careful studies show that veterans typically earn 12% to 15% less than those workers who do not go into the military. One reason for this discrepancy is that much military training is not useful in outside work. Another is the high proportion of veterans who experience PTSD and other problems that interfere with work. www.v-r-a.org/docs/DisAVets.htm#_edn12

4. The hazards of military service include more than just getting killed or wounded. For instance, less than 300 US soldiers were killed in the first Gulf War of 1991. But tens of thousands of Gulf War vets have reported chronic, debilitating physical and psychological disorders since serving in the Gulf. :www.va.gov/pressrel/gwfs.htm
Similar problems are already showing up in soldiers returning from the Iraq occupation: rates of major depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder are very high.

5. Women in the military face a very high incidence of harassment and rape. Recent studies and notorious cases show, as one report put it, that “sexual assault on women in the military may be common, and that those attacks leave physical and emotional scars on the female veterans long after they’ve left the service.” Moreover, military higher-ups often ignore or cover up these crimes. www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/ResearchResources/PressClips/news10_31_99.htm

6. Military life is very hard on families. The incidence of family abuse and violence in the military is three to five times higher than in the civilian population. A recent North Carolina study showed that children in military communities were twice as likely to be killed by their parents. These abuse patterns are intensified by the impact of a force stretched too thin in Iraq and elsewhere. Heyman & Neidig, Jrnl Consulting Clinical Psychology 1999 ?Apr;67(2):239-42. See also this report from the Quaker House Newsletter. North Carolina Child Homicide Report: www.ncchild.org/maltreatment.htm

7. DELAYED ENLISTMENT PROGRAM: Persons who sign up for Delayed Enlistment and change their minds CAN get out of the program, relatively easily. Recruiters will often LIE about this, falsely telling people they will be arrested, go to jail, or (if immigrants) get their families deported. If all else fails, DEP members can simply refuse to report for enlistment. More information at: girights.objector.org/delayed-enlistment-program.html

8. Benefits promised to veterans have been repeatedly cut, with more reductions on the way. www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2153-2003Jun16?language=printer