All it takes is one brick. One brick brought military recruitment back into our minds when it crashed through the window of the Army Recruiting Station in University Square last week. Protests of military recruiters have been a tradition on our campus, but the Supreme Court seemingly put recruiters' presence on campus to rest in a recent decision.
On March 6, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to uphold the Solomon Amendment, allowing military recruiters to stay on campus if university receives federal funding. Many law schools had taken issue with the requirement because of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell\ policy of the military. They claimed it violated universities' freedom of speech and association by requiring them to associate with a discriminatory group.
Chief Justice John Roberts made clear in his decision that this is not true. ""Law schools therefore ‘associate' with military recruiters in the sense that they interact with them. But recruiters are not part of the law school,"" Roberts said. ""Recruiters are, by definition, outsiders who come onto campus for the limited purpose of trying to hire students—not to become members of the school's expressive association.""
Roberts is absolutely correct. The Solomon Amendment allows universities to ban recruitment as long as they opt out of receiving federal funding. No university is forced to accept the recruiters and, therefore, the decision to allow them is by their own freedom of association.
In the fall of 2005 three institutions, Vermont Law School, New York Law School and William Mitchell College of Law, actually were banned from receiving federal funding. This made me wonder, what would happen if we banned recruiters on campus and, subsequently, lost federal funding?
In the 2004-05 academic year, UW-Madison received 28 percent of its revenue from federal funding. Of the $1.9 billion budget, $526 million came from federal programs, projects and financial aid. While the law exempts federal grants solely for financial aid from being rebuffed, this only amounts to $90 million. By banning recruiters on campus, UW-Madison would then need to replace $436 million in the budget, which would mean disaster for many areas on campus.
UW-Madison is the top-ranked institution in the country for research that leads to direct economic benefits according to a Washington Monthly finding released last September. In October we received a $16 million grant from the National Institute of Health to create the only National Stem Cell Bank in the United States. Our funding for research comes from the federal government. How could we replace this money?
More importantly, however, this could mean an extreme increase in tuition. Currently, funding at the UW is broken down into federal, state, tuition, private support and auxiliary categories. Private funding is not about to rise, since the amount of donations we receive has remained fairly steady, and auxiliary is practically fixed. Also, the UW has gone from a state-supported to a state-assisted institution in the last few years, meaning less and less of our revenue comes from state taxes. This leaves tuition as the only feasible option to cover the deficit.
Tuition amounted to $297 million in 2004-05. With an additional $436 million to cover and seemingly only one place to get it from, tuition would have to increase drastically. Wisconsin residents pay approximately $6,220 per year now. With no federal funding it would increase to $15,363 per year. Are you really prepared to pay that?
I know there is a more profound reason why military recruitment is protested on this campus—people are against the war, as am I. But when looking at it practically there is no way to get them out. Recruiters must stay for the good of the university and protests need to be conducted in a more appropriate manner.
Erik Opsal is a sophomore majoring in political science. Send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
\
