Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
JohnnyTrojan08
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:46 pm

Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby JohnnyTrojan08 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:04 am

Apparently it wasn't so much of a ban... would love to hear what people think about her letter and the topic itself.

Dear Students:

I want to take this opportunity to welcome you to campus and wish you all the best if you are returning now to participate in the Early Interview Program (EIP) this week. I believe that this year’s applicants will have marvelous success in finding terrific opportunities, and recent signs of improvement in the job market for new lawyers make this an exciting time.

With the recruiting season's launch, I want to send you now as I and my predecessor Deans have in the past special information related to campus recruitment by the U.S. Military. If you followed the Senate confirmation hearings of Justice Elena Kagan, you know that this topic has engaged the school in careful discussions and plans. If you are not familiar with the history and current arrangements, this is a good moment--with U.S. military recruitment on campus this week and again during our Fall Interview Program in October-- for me to let you know about that history and our current plans.

Along with prior Deans, I view the opportunities and responsibilities associated with military services as extraordinary. Military service is a calling that should be honored and appreciated by everyone in a society whose freedom is protected by those who serve. Along with prior Deans, I am charged with ensuring the maximum range of career opportunities for all of our students. A few years ago, before I was Dean, I led an unsuccessful effort to adhere to our nondiscrimination-in-employment policy, adopted in 1979 and mirroring policies developed over the past decades at many other law schools. That policy provides that any employer using the services of the school’s interviewing process to recruit at the school must sign a statement indicating that it does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital or parental status, disability, source of income, or status as a veteran, see http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/care ... index.html. Because of the Congressional policy, (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)), military recruiters representatives could not sign this statement. For several years, as a result, the Law School did not extend access to the career serivces [sic]office to military recruiters but did ensure full access to our students--and students retained full access to interviews for jobs with the military. The Harvard Law School Veterans Association facilitated interviews on campus and military recruiters at all times had complete opportunities to contact students, and students did pursue and obtain posts offered by the military.

A ruling by the Department of Defense in 2002 made [sic] the entire university would lose all federal funding unless the Law School provided formal access through the Career Services office. In 2006, in Rumsfeld v. FAIR, the Supreme Court upheld this interpretation of the relevant statutes, known as the Solomon Amendment, against a legal challenge in which a group from the HLS faculty participated.

As a result, the Law School now fully complies with the Solomon Amendment and includes recruiters from the military in our regular interviewing process. Although the Law School itself receives very little federal funding, the University as a whole receives about 15 percent of its operating budget from such funds, with the Medical School and the School of Public Health receiving by far the largest share of this money, which they use for important scientific and medical research.

Members of our own community hold varied views about these issues. I personally believe that discrimination against gays and lesbians who seek to enter military service is unwise and unfair, I regret any practice that denies an opportunity to some of our students that other students have.
We will be holding a panel discussion early in the semester, open to the public, to discuss these issues. Please look for information about the panel once the semester starts.

Sincerely,
Martha Minow
Last edited by JohnnyTrojan08 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Fresh
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 4:30 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby Fresh » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:32 am

JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:A ruling by the Department of Defense in 2002 made the entire university would lose all federal funding unless the Law School provided formal access through the Career Services office.


Sweet typo Dean.
Auto-reject :D

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby d34d9823 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 11:36 am

Fresh wrote:
JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:A ruling by the Department of Defense in 2002 made the entire university would lose all federal funding unless the Law School provided formal access through the Career Services office.


Sweet typo Dean.
Auto-reject :D

Also,

For several years, as a result, the Law School did not extend access to the career serivces office to military recruiters

User avatar
JohnnyTrojan08
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby JohnnyTrojan08 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:10 pm

I noticed the first... I should add a [sic] to the post so people don't think it's me. :roll:

Career Services Office is correct, though.

User avatar
Iconoclast
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 10:10 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby Iconoclast » Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:59 pm

JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:Career Services Office is correct, though.


Yes it is. Unfortunately, that's not how she spelled it.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby d34d9823 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:49 pm

Iconoclast wrote:
JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:Career Services Office is correct, though.


Yes it is. Unfortunately, that's not how she spelled it.

There are two occurrences in the document, one of which is misspelled.

User avatar
JohnnyTrojan08
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby JohnnyTrojan08 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:03 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
Iconoclast wrote:
JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:Career Services Office is correct, though.


Yes it is. Unfortunately, that's not how she spelled it.

There are two occurrences in the document, one of which is misspelled.


LOL... This is a pretty atrocious email, then. For one typo you can wrap the knuckles of the secretary; two is just laziness.
Last edited by JohnnyTrojan08 on Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

d34d9823
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby d34d9823 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:04 pm

JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:LOL... This is a pretty atrocious email, then. One typo you can wrap the knuckles of the secretary; two is just laziness.

QF Irony

User avatar
JohnnyTrojan08
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:46 pm

Re: Dean Minow's Letter about Kagan's Military Recruitment "Ban"

Postby JohnnyTrojan08 » Tue Aug 24, 2010 2:05 pm

d34dluk3 wrote:
JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:LOL... This is a pretty atrocious email, then. One typo you can wrap the knuckles of the secretary; two is just laziness.

QF Irony


In boiling bacon, duh. That's how I punish my secretary. :twisted:




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, lakers3, shineoncrazydiamond and 11 guests