|
- American Bar Association
- American Civil Liberties Union
- Association of American Law Schools
- Black Stripe
- Boston Queer Asian Pacific Alliance
- Community United Against Violence
- Deaf Queer Resource Center
- Fenway Community Health Center
- Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
- Gender Public Advocacy Coalition
- Human Rights Campaign
- International Association of Lesbian & Gay Judges
- International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Comm.
- International Lesbian & Gay Association
- Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund
- Massachusetts Chapter of Gender Education &
Advocacy
- Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association
- National Center for Lesbian Rights
- National Gay & Lesbian Task Force
- National Latina/o LGBT Organization
- National Lesbian & Gay Law Association
- Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
|
AMERICAN
CONSTITUTION SOCIETY LETTER:
September
18, 2002
Dear BCLS faculty and administration,
As president of Boston College Law School's Chapter of the American Constitution
Society (ACS), I feel I should speak with respect to the current controversy
surrounding JAG Corps recruiting and the suspension of the school¹s
nondiscrimination policy. My views do not necessarily reflect those of the
entire organization; however, when the values that the ACS seeks to uphold
are being systematically chipped away by the actions of the law school, I
think I have a duty to express my dissatisfaction and sincere disappointment.
I also wrote an e-mail on Tuesday in support of Lambda¹s position, which I
sent to the ACS listserv and Lambda's president. I reiterate that support
here, and have attached the e-mail to this letter.
I am reminded of the movie Indecent Proposal, in which one man offers another
man $1 million for a night with his wife. Just as a price cannot be placed on
the sanctity of marriage, neither can a figure be assigned to the fundamental
rights of our peers. Yet you have now put a $30 million price tag on civil
rights; you were propositioned by the military, and you acquiesced. This
smacks of cowardice, not of thoughtful reflection about the priorities of
BCLS and what it, as a top law school dedicated to the Jesuit tradition, owes
its students. That which was sacred is now bought.
I hope the Task Force is able to come up with a viable solution to this
problem. I am willing to give whatever it takes to restore the justice that
rightfully belongs to BCLS's gay community. It would be a moral victory if
the faculty and administration were willing to do the same.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Deal
President, American Constitution Society
BCLS 2004
APALSA's Statement on the Suspension of the
Non-Discrimination Policy:
As an organization representing the interests of the Asian Pacific American student
population at BC Law, APALSA wholly and firmly supports the reinstatement of
the non-discrimination policy. BC Law should be an institution that not only
protects racial minorities from explicit discrimination, but those of a
minority sexual orientation as well.
Asian Pacific Americans have been historically discriminated against, from
the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans during
WWII to the treatment of Wen Ho Lee in recent years. While discrimination of
Asian Pacific Americans was tolerated in the past, we will not tolerate such
discrimination of any kind. This includes the discrimination of the
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered community.
The suspension of the non-discrimination policy tolerates discrimination at
BC Law. APALSA calls upon BC Law to actively protect minorities by
reinstating the non-discrimination policy. We express our solidarity with the
GLBT community at large, and in particular with our GLBT colleagues at BC Law
on this issue.
Sincerely,
Janelle Kuroda '04
APALSA President
on behalf of the APALSA membership
BLSA
LETTER:
October
24, 2002
To the Faculty and Administration of Boston College Law School:
The Black Law Students Association (BLSA) has historically been a champion of
diversity. Former and current members of BLSA have fought physically,
mentally and emotionally for the civil rights of black people in such areas
as voting rights, employment discrimination, and fair housing. BLSA has been
a leader in the legal community in attempting to secure equality in the areas
of law school admissions; law school faculty recruitment and retention; and
legal employment recruitment, promotion, and retention.
Boston College BLSA (BCBLSA) vigorously promotes these same ideals for all
people. To that end, BCBLSA has been an active supporter of Boston College
Law School's (BCLS) Non-Discrimination Policy which states a commitment to
achieving fairness and equality in legal employment recruitment, promotion
and retention. BCLS extended the Policy to require that employers recruiting
on campus assert the same commitment.
Boston College Black Law Students Association supports the BCLS
Non-Discrimination Policy in its entirety and without exception. In addition,
BCBLSA urges the administration to require that all employers professing
compliance with the policy provide evidence of such. Evidence of compliance
should be included in the recruiting information for approved employers.
BCBLSA thus reaffirms its dedication to increasing diversity in the legal
community.
Sincerely,
BOSTON COLLEGE BLACK LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
Signed on behalf of the organization by:
Kali C. Billingslea
President
COALITION
FOR EQUALITY LETTER:
October
25, 2002,
Dear Boston College Law School Community,
The United States military is an indispensable organization that protects our
nation, our constitution, our traditions, and the values we uphold. If these
values of freedom, equality, human dignity and safety are worth protecting
and fighting for abroad, they must be worth practicing and fighting for at
home.
Discrimination at Boston College Law School hurts the students we sit next to
in class, the professors who teach us, and the staff who facilitate our
learning. Allowing the U.S. military, an employer who discriminates, to recruit
on campus in violation of our non-discrimination policy has a dehumanizing
effect on everyone in our community. When we open our doors to military
recruiters, we allow them to send a message that gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender students are not fully human and do not deserve the same
treatment as any other student at our law school. Student tuition dollars,
including those of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students, and those
who oppose the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy, fund the resources recruiters
use when they come to our campus to conduct information sessions and
interviews. The tuition dollars of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
students are used to exclude them from employment opportunities in the U.S.
military.
Since its founding, the United States has served as a model of how democracy
can uplift the human condition. Through the efforts of our armed forces, our
nation has ascended to a position of leadership and respect among the nations
of the world. But that leadership and respect is compromised by the
discrimination currently practiced in our military. The United States is not
a leader in the area of equality. Twenty-three other nations endorse
diversity as a component of a strong military, and allow gays and lesbians to
serve with pride. The United States and Turkey are the only NATO nations who
have yet to promote equality within their military.
The military will be stronger when it allows the best and brightest to serve
regardless of sexual orientation. As recently as the last century, it was
argued that African-Americans and women should not serve in the military
because their presence would undermine the strength and morale of our armed
forces. History has proven these arguments wrong. Our military and our nation
are stronger because of the integration of African-Americans and the
inclusion of women in the armed forces. Similarly, allowing qualified gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans to serve will contribute to the
military’s diversity, its strength, and preserve the United States’ role as a
model for democracy and equality.
We recognize that the military has rewarding career opportunities for
students at Boston College Law School. We will welcome JAG recruiters onto
our campus when the U.S. military’s employment practices reflect the values
it is designed to protect and comply with the non-discrimination policy.
We understand that this debate is fraught with tension, but we hope to open
the door to increased dialogue among students about these important issues.
The purpose of the non-discrimination policy is not only to protect students
in this community, but to encourage community discussion and understanding.
People of differing opinions who engage in good-faith debate form a stronger
community in the end.
Sincerely,
Coalition for Equality at Boston College Law School
with support from:
American Constitution Society Executive Board
Asian Pacific American Law Students Association
Holocaust/Human Rights Project
International Law Society
Jewish Law Students Association
Lambda Law Students Association
National Lawyers Guild
PILF Civil Rights Project
Reproductive Choice Coalition
Women's Law Center
INTERNATIONAL
LAW SOCIETY LETTER:
To the
Boston College Law School Community:
The
International Law Society (ILS) calls for the immediate reinstatement and
full compliance with the Non-Discrimination Policy at Boston College Law
School. We admonish the adminstration for suspending the Non-Discrimination
Policy, and for marginalizing the student community.
In the
constitution of the International Law Society, one of the purposes of the
organization is to foster an interest in, and awareness of, matters of
diversity, equality and human rights. This goal would be impossible if not
for open-mindedness and acceptance of different cultures and lifestyles. We
do not tolerate discrimination on any grounds, including sexual orientation.
It is
the opinion of ILS that under no circumstances should the Non-Discrimination
Policy ever be suspended. We cannot imagine a circumstance where the
consequences would warrant a suspension of the policy. The policy is central
to the values of our law school and is necessary to maintain a diverse
community of tolerance and acceptance.
-The
International Law Society
LAMBDA LAW
STUDENTS ASSOCIATION of BOSTON COLLEGE LAW SCHOOL
September 16, 2002
An Open
Letter to Faculty and Administrators of Boston College Law School:
The BCLS
faculty resolution of September 9, 2002, allowing the U.S. military
unmitigated entry to recruit on the law school campus through the Career
Services Office violates the BCLS nondiscrimination policy, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Students
have a fundamental right to expect that our school will follow its own policies,
particularly those that guard rights as vital as protection from
discrimination. By abandoning the portion of the nondiscrimination policy
that pertains to sexual orientation, the faculty and administration have
eroded the basic rights guaranteed to all students. No student can now be
assured that his or her rights will be protected under the policy or defended
by the administration or faculty if challenged. When our nondiscrimination
policy is tested, it is precisely those groups that are intentionally and
rightfully set aside for protection which most need the unwavering support
and assistance of the BCLS faculty and administration.
We are
profoundly hurt that our own teachers - legal scholars and skilled attorneys
- have not stood up for the protection of our rights. Our faculty has been
and should remain to be at the front of the battle against a federal law that
is discriminatory on its face. Instead, the faculty resolution purports to
"reaffirm" the law school¹s commitment to its nondiscrimination
policy on the basis of sexual orientation while in the same breath failing to
actually do so. If the military discriminated on the basis of race, religion,
ethnicity or physical ability, BCLS would have defended the nondiscrimination
policy and sought alternatives to outright capitulation, no matter the cost.
As a result of these actions, GLBT students, many of whom would not be at
BCLS if our nondiscrimination policy did not include sexual orientation, now
face the reality of discrimination on a daily basis.
Law
school is a professional school that students attend in great part in order
to get a job. 2L's may devote the first half of their year to job-hunting.
Summers during law school are spent working, not relaxing after a busy year.
Law schools boast about the prestigious employment their graduates obtain in
order to entice new law students. In this way, the Career Services Office is
the heart of our campus. To allow into the Career Services Office, without
protest, an employer that blatantly discriminates against any student is to
functionally nullify our nondiscrimination policy.
The
faculty resolution was enacted without consulting students or fully exploring
the school's legal ability to enforce its nondiscrimination policy. This is
not the first time a decision has been made on this very same issue without
consulting the student body. Last time this was done, it was reversed, and
the law at issue repealed, largely by efforts of the BCLS student body. While
we appreciate that some faculty and administrators supposed they had no other
available choice, we feel that is neither an accurate depiction of this
situation nor a credible statement from teachers of the Rule of Law. We
recognize that our school is facing extreme pressure, and we are writing to
ask our faculty and administrators to work with us, not without us, to solve
this matter.
A
retraction of our school's policy, if it is necessary at all, should only be
an interim solution to a much larger problem. In 1998, following a similar
situation and faculty vote, BCLS re-committed to principles of social justice
and emerged a national leader on compliance with the Solomon Amendment while
preserving our nondiscrimination policy. As a result, other law schools
looked to us as an example of the way to protect their own students. BCLS has
been, and continues to be capable of the conviction, energy, and legal
creativity required to face and persevere in this struggle. This letter is a
call to action.
Sincerely,
Lambda
Law Students Association
BC HEIGHTS ARTICLE:
BC Law battles discrimination
By: Elizabeth Winkowski
10/21/02
Equal justice under the law is a principle studied vigorously by students at
the Boston College Law School. Principles of this equality, including sexual
orientation, have been incorporated into BC Law's Policy against
Discrimination and Harassment since the early 1980s. But in 1996, a piece of
legislation known as the Solomon Amendment challenged these principles and
challenged BC Law's non-discrimination policies.
Though the Solomon Amendment has been amended over the years, it currently
states that if a law school doesn't allow military recruiters to recruit on a
law school's campus, and doesn't allow the military recruiters the same
resources as all other prospective employers, funding for the entire
university will be cut. At BC, federal funding amounts to roughly $35
million-an amount of money the university could hardly do without.
Some BC Law faculty, administrators, and students believe that treating
military recruiters the same as other recruiters, even though the military
has a policy which discriminates against homosexuals, undermines the law
school's Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment. Their struggle to
defend BC Law's policy has had its up and downs, and continues today.
Don't ask-don't tell
At the heart of the matter is the military's policy of "don't ask-don't
tell" (don't pursue, don't harass, in its longer form), which Alan
Minuskin, BC Law professor and chair of the task force dealing with Solomon, calls
a "facially discriminatory policy."
Don't ask-don't tell was what Minuskin called a "compromise
solution," made in 1993. Despite then-President Bill Clinton's campaign
promises to improve life in the military for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals,
passing legislation proved difficult. The end result was don't ask-don't
tell. Under this policy, in theory, military personnel are not required to
answer if asked about sexual orientation nor are they allowed to inquire
about another's sexual orientation.
Despite this, Minuskin said, "The number of people forcibly discharged
from the military because of sexual orientation has continued to go up and
up." Minuskin also cited cases in which soldiers and sailors have been
murdered by their comrades because they were thought to be gay. This kind of
thing, he said, "flows naturally from the military's
institutionalization of a policy and practice of active discrimination
against gays."
In practice, don't ask-don't tell, isn't as simple as it appears. What
happens when soldiers, sailors and Marines men begin talking to each other
their lives, taking photographs out of their wallet? Where does this leave
gay and lesbian service members? Minuskin recounted the story of a gay friend
in the military whom, because of don't ask-don't tell, was forced to create a
fictional life story to share with his comrades to avoid questions about his
sexual orientation.
BC Law professor James Rogers, who served as interim dean from 1998-1999,
said that the United States is nearly alone in the world excluding gays from
the military. According to Minuskin, Turkey is the only other NATO country
that discriminates against gays in its military. Even Israel includes gays.
"Maybe they see that the military is what really matters," Rogers
said.
"Israel's not an easy place to be gay," said Minuskin. "But
Israel has no ban based on sexual orientation and also has a requirement for
military service. Everyone has to be in it, and it's not a problem,"
"If don't ask don't tell were to be eliminated I think we would have a
stronger armed service, I think we would be a more secure country, I think we
would be more tolerant country. I think we would be more in line with the
rest of the world. The least of it is we wouldn't have this Solomon Amendment
problem here at the law school," Minuskin said.
A difference in policy
Although BC's four undergraduate schools, three graduate schools, and BC Law
are all part of the same university, BC Law has its own unique policy against
discrimination that unconditionally includes sexual orientation.
The University's notice of non-discrimination states, "In addition, in a
manner faithful to the Jesuit Catholic principles and values that sustain its
mission and heritage, Boston College is in compliance with applicable state
laws providing equal opportunity without regard to sexual orientation."
The BC Law Policy against Discrimination and Harassment states, "Boston
College Law School is committed to a policy against discrimination and
harassment based on age; sex; race; color; religion; national origin or
ancestry; sexual orientation; disability; or marital, family, or military
status. Boston College Law School extends use of its facilities to employers
whose policies are consistent with this policy and expects that no
discrimination or harassment will occur in hiring, promotion, compensation,
and work assignments."
BC Law's inclusion of sexual orientation in its policy dates back to the
early 1980s. The inclusion, according to Rogers, is "a matter of the law
school's educational policy." At an institution where law and social
justice are studied, an environment sensitive to all issues is essential. Any
other sort of environment would be "inconsistent with the fundamental
principle of education. It's an important part of our educational
philosophy," said Rogers.
Accreditation by the Association of American Law Schools is essential to a
law school's vitality. The AALS maintains standards for its approval of a law
school. Their bylaws require that member schools provide "equality of
opportunity in legal education for all persons. without discrimination or
segregation on the ground of race, color, religion.or sexual
orientation." The American Bar Association also has a similar standard
of approval that also includes sexual orientation under equality of
opportunity.
According to the AALS, there is no clear conflict between religious
affiliation and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Interpretive principles of this bylaw to guide religiously affiliated member
schools "seek to strike a fair and sensitive balance between the values
of religious liberty and nondiscrimination based upon sexual
orientation." The principles protect "against discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. When applied to religiously affiliated schools,
that absolute protection of the status of sexual orientation continues, but
in the unique context of religious liberty."
Enter the Solomon Amendment
The Solomon Amendment was passed in 1996. Any institution of higher learning
could deny military recruiters access to students and resources, but would do
so at the cost of all federal funding.
"Nothing really happened about that until 1997," Minuskin said. BC
Law was notified by the military that they were not in compliance with the
amendment, and that government financing would be terminated.
In 1998-1999, then Interim Dean Rogers created a task force to deal with the
Solomon Amendment, chaired by Minuskin. Minuskin said one goal of the task
force was "how we can best comply with Solomon law without causing undue
harm to the law school community. That meant, without trading off any part of
our non-discrimination policy unnecessarily."
The task force sought to fight against Solomon in the spirit of the civil
rights movement, making an effort to change law through a grassroots
movement.
Rogers said the task force was also a forum for discussion of the
discrimination that gays face in the military and in the society. Films and
speakers came to BC Law, involving much of the greater law school community
with the issue something.
The task force interpreted Solomon carefully, and determined that the
military could still be allowed access to campus and students, which was all
Solomon asked, through "minimal compliance."
Inspired by Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), an openly gay representative,
the task force worked on a national level with other law schools to change
Solomon, generating support for Frank-Campbell Bill. The bill repealed the
part of the Amendment that cut off funding for student loans, leaving only
the part that would cut off direct grants to law school. Only a few law
schools receive direct funding, so it diminished the effect of the amendment.
The bill "didn't undo Solomon but it tempered it by taking student
financial assistance out of the equation," Minuskin said.
Though the task force considered the passage of Solomon a victory, two months
later, the Defense Department amended their regulation: If a school within a
university refused military recruiters, then entire funds to the university
would be threatened.
BC Law lived with this arrangement from 1999-2002. Operating under
"minimal compliance," military recruiters came to campus, but were
not hosted by the career services office.
Rogers said that this year, the military has taken an extremely aggressive
stance on Solomon. "If a school doesn't meet the military's
interpretation of the statute, the military says after you lose the money,
you can sue us," Rogers said.
"We, along with 21 other law schools, got a letter from someone pretty
high up, in charge of recruiting in the Air Force. That letter said to us and
21 other law schools, we don't think you're in compliance with the Solomon
law," Minuskin said. Among the other schools were Harvard, Yale, Columbia,
and NYU, to name a few.
The task force saw nothing in the clause, which demanded only access, that
said military recruiters must be treated equally.
"[Our policy towards recruiters] was unequal. We intended it to be
unequal because there was nothing in the law that required it to be equal. We
also thought it kind of is equal. Because we're treating the military equally
to any other employer who also discriminates," Minuskin said.
BC Law had 30 days to comply with the letter or explain to the military how
they were actually in compliance, or risk losing $35 million. For Harvard and
Yale, the amount at risk approached $350 million. Every school that has been
put under this pressure capitulated.
"Would we trade away race for 35 million dollars? Would we trade away
gender for 35 million dollars? What would we trade religion away for? Oh,
would it take 100 million for gender and 200 million dollars for race? What
are we doing?" Minuskin asked.
According to Rogers, if Boston College objected to Solomon the military would
cut funding before any litigation was settled.
"What happens to the chemistry professor doing the research when the
checks stop coming?" Minuskin asked.
"This was an anguished decision," Rogers said. "It's a
terrible position to be in, and it's a terrible position for our gay
students," calling the military's policy "pernicious."
"The reason we've taken such a strong stand is because we see it as a
matter of principle. And it's one we really shouldn't compromise,"
Minuskin said.
The students react
Protecting equality is the what BC Law student Arthur Harris calls the
"fundamental essence of human rights." Harris came to law school to
focus on issues of civil and human rights, sits on the task force, and spoke
at an October 3 rally.
"It's apparent that this is a human rights issue; I had no choice."
said Harris of his involvement opposing the Solomon Amendment. Harris is a
member of Black Law Students Association and the American Constitutional
Society, two other campus groups that oppose Solomon.
Harris hails from Montgomery, Alabama and his family was directly involved
with the civil rights movement.
"I didn't choose civil rights, coming from where I was born, and who I
was born around ... It chose me," he said.
"It's discrimination. Period," Harris said of the military's
policy. "BC students are a valuable resource. We're excluding the best
and the brightest at a time when we probably need them the most."
"We're all born different. We have to accept our differences to maintain
society," Harris said, adding that in Abraham Lincoln's words, "a
nation divided cannot stand."
"We're not against the military," said Harris, who had once
considered the military's JAG program. Today, Harris sees the military
applying the same excuses for exclusion once applied to blacks to gays.
"I came to BC because they had a strong social justice mission,"
Harris said. With its non-discrimination policy challenged by the military,
Harris wants to see BC "live up to that tradition."
"Equality is one of the basic principles of the legal system," said
Lisa Hurlbutt, president of the Lambda Law Students Association. "It's
what we're taught every day."
Lambda is a group of students, faculty and staff at BC Law that raises
awareness and support for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community. Lambda is an official student organization that receives
recognition and funding from BC Law, unlike BC's Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Community (LGBC), which receives no such official recognition.
Hurlbutt agrees the potential loss of money puts the law school in an
impossible position, but believes it essential that BC Law be a safe
environment for learning, for all students.
The Jewish Law Students Association is another of the 13 student groups which
oppose Solomon.
"The JSLA board discussed it in depth," said JSLA president Adam
Bovilsky. "The Jews have a long history of working for social justice,
and fighting for the oppressed," said Bovilsky. In addition, the JSLA
may include members who are homosexual.
"It was an easy and clear choice," Bovilsky said.
Equality of opportunity
"Everyone at the law school should have the opportunity to pursue
military careers," Rogers said; the issue is not an anti-military issue.
"If you want to use the Career Services Center you have to consider all
of our students equal," Rogers said. What the military was saying was,
according to Rogers, "we'll only interview some, but not all."
A large part of a law school's administration is devoted to employing current
law students. According to Rogers, to provide the military the extensive
resources they provide other employers, even though the military does not
consider all BC Law students equal, "doesn't make sense."
"Law schools were required to include sexual orientation and therefore
weren't able to allow discriminatory employers access to their career
services," Minuskin said.
In addition to their standards for a law school's approval, the ABA also
requires the school provide equal opportunity for employment to law students.
Standards for equality of opportunity "apply to all employers, including
government agencies [military recruiters, for instance], to whom a school
furnishes assistance and facilities for interviewing and other placement
services. However, this Standard does not require a law school to implement
its terms by excluding any employer unless that employer discriminates
unlawfully."
The case being made by BC Law students and faculty is that the military's
don't ask-don't tel" policy regarding homosexuals makes them at odds
with BC Law's own Policy Against Discrimination & Harassment. Because of
this disparity, military recruiters were previously denied treatment equal to
that of other employers. For example, the recruiters were required to conduct
their interviews on the Chestnut Hill Campus and did not receive the same
"care and feeding" as other recruiters.
Fortunately for the military, there is a loophole in the ABA's standard of
equal opportunity and employment. The same standard that holds prospective
employers to non-discrimination "does not require a law school to adopt
policies or take actions that would violate federal law applicable to that
school."
The fight continues
On October 3, BC Law's Career Services hosted the Air Force and Army Judge
Advocate General Corps (JAG). Last week Navy and Marine JAGs also visited and
BC Law, and were treated exactly the same as other employers.
"What we had to do was open our doors wider," Minuskin said.
Though BC Law has, for now, formally agreed to follow Solomon according to
the military's interpretation, the task force continues to seek ways to
challenge that interpretation, to challenge the law itself, and to work
legislatively to change it, according to Minuskin.
"The message to the community when we do something like this is yeah, we
included sexual orientation in our non-discrimination policy and we care
about it, we just don't care about it as much. And that seems to be a kind of
discrimination in itself," Minuskin said.
Protesters, organized by Lambda, met JAGs with a rally October 3 and will
meet them again on November 1. On this date, BC Law will host the regional
government job fair, attracting students from many area law schools.
"The rally for gay rights became a rally for human rights," Harris
said or the October 3 event.
"It reaffirms our community," said Hurlbutt, "to speak up, and
let the military know we're opposed."
Story Source: The Heights
|
