Cracking the Ice Safe – Why the Ivy Leagues Need to Let Military Recruiters Back on Campus

Regardless of what arguments private institutions may make as it relates to allowing the military on their campus to recruit, what cannot be denied, is that Ivy league students heckling a disabled war hero has no place in a respectful discourse on the subject.

I read with great distress the arctic reception given to a disabled Veteran last week at Columbia University, and then listened to the remarks of Anthony Maschek myself. Maschek, wheel-chair bound, was shot multiple times in Iraq and is now seeking a degree at Columbia University.

Maschek has clearly committed to reaching out his hand, and he made a good point – we need academic diversity in the military, and minds like those developed at Columbia are welcome additions to Armed Forces.  He reached out in the same way that the President, Congress, and the Senior Military Leadership have stepped up to address this difficult policy.

Although likely not an indictment of the entire student body at Columbia (a special nod to the Post-911 GI Bill Students), the treatment it is an indicator of a persistent problem that military recruiters have had for some time now. I think it is time for the Ivy Leagues to warm up a bit, and some of their students could use a lesson on debate without debasing.

As a little background, Columbia University opposed military recruiting on campus in the same fashion of other job recruiters for many years.  Several major Ivy League Schools elevated the stand-off with the Military by filing suit in 2003 that was eventually ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2006. My fellow JAG officers at the time in the United States Army Litigation Division  assisted in the defense of the case at the Supreme Court.

The crux of the Law School’s objection was that the military policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was unlawfully discriminatory. The military argued that if they wanted federal funds, they needed to allow recruiters access –they won the case 8-0.

I was working for the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Litigation Division at the time, and was familiar with the arguments that the Army postured in defense of it’s program. I also happened to be a recruiter for law students into the United States Army at the time, so I was personally aware of the tenor and

Former Captain Koby J. langley on a recruiting trip for the U.S. Army JAG Corps (2005)

temperature of various schools to the idea of military recruiters on their campus during this time frame.

Although nearly every University formulated their own version of “compliance” with the law that allows military recruiters on college campuses in exchange for federal funds, what really mattered on the ground was the tenor and temperature on the campuses.

Some schools were open and warm, others were distant and dismissive; yet others matched the reception with their likely viewpoint on an ROTC cadet receiving a degree from their beloved institution — colder than a Siberian sheep-skin.

On a rare occasion or two, I felt like I needed my flack-vest from Iraq and deep winter Gortex along with my high-gloss hand-outs, and carefully scripted talking points.

I won’t comment on what the reputation of Harvard was at the time, but I will note there was consistent debate about the  role of Ivy League Deans as it related to the military. The defense of her actions at Harvard and in the ensuing lawsuit on the issue were intense and pervasive leading up to her confirmation hearing, and generally addressed via a “Myth versus Fact” piece by Media Matters. What I will say, is that I have seen many sides of this debate, and feel comfortable in saying that it is time for the Ivy Leagues to realize that the times, they are a changing.

In the earlier part of the last decade, I investigated and participated in the prosecution of soldiers for violation of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and I listened to the arguments in defense of the policy by commanders that were accurately represented by General James Amos.

I then recruited for the Army on college campuses when the policy was in place — carefully engaging Schools who were closer to the polar side of the military recruiting mercury – about as warm and welcoming as an old fashioned ice safe. Later still, I left active duty, and while in private practice, I advised soldiers who were being discharged for violation of the policy, and defended them.

I also saw first hand the devastating effect from the side of the soldier and their family, and listened intently to soldiers who were frightened for their lives, and for the lives of the ones they cared for. One of my good friends, and Iraq battle buddy, Congressman Patrick J. Murphy, led the charge against the policy for the House of Representatives. He stood over the President’s shoulder as the historic policy change was born.

So now debate is now back on the table, not because of the lightening rod of a confirmation hearing to the highest court in the United States, but because the President has called for a repeal of “Don’t’ Ask Don’t Tell”, stating most recently that “we are not a nation that says, “don’t ask, don’t tell.” We are a nation that says, “Out of many, we are one.” The Pentagon has responded to that leadership by formulating a policy to repeal the practice.

Admiral Mullen captured the basic argument of the fundamental conflict that Officers and Soldiers face with the current policy – one of integrity. “This is my personal view. I struggled greatly with the fact that we asked people in an institution that values integrity, which is who we are, that we would ask individuals to show up everyday and basically lie. So my position on that hasn’t changed at all.”

Secretary Gates, in announcing his opposition to the policy and the plan for implementation has stated that he is confident that the repeal will be in place prior to the end of the year.

Earlier this month, Dr. Clifford L. Stanley, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel Policy stood with the DoD leadership team in charge of putting together the repeal plan for the Services during a media event and announced the Department of Defense three step plan to implement the policy.   

So perhaps it is time for the Ivy League schools that extol the virtues of civil liberty that led them to argue principal over pragmatism before the Supreme Court in 2006. It is 2011 now my friends, and Change is here. It is time for the Ivy League Schools to start the walk of reconciliation, and meet the military half way … hit the defrost button.

Editors Note:  The views expressed on this blog are the authors and the authors alone, and should not be attributed to my employer or any organization which I am affiliated. Any links to any site, likewise do not constitute endorsement, formal or informal, of any entity, its services or activities.

Snipers Bullet Can’t Stop Father’s Dream

The story of a wounded warrior paralyzed by a sniper in Iraq, and his incredible road to recovery reminds us all of how far combat medicine has come. The Army soldier was cut down in 2007 by a sniper in Iraq and was paralyzed from the neck down – six weeks after he said his vows, for better or for worse.

Quadriplegia? We’ll figure it out. Wheelchair? We’ll figure it out. So when the doctor told them she was pregnant with triplets in May of last year, Matt and Tracy Keil told themselves they would figure it out. “When I was shot that day, and I didn’t die, I looked at myself and said I’m not done on this Earth,” Matt Keil said.

Turns out the better won out over the worse – twofold.

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1

The recovery process was long and arduous, and there were moments when the family doubted if their dream of a family was a possibility. The fact that Matt survived at all is a testament to the incredible advancements in combat medicine, where the survivability rate is at an all-time high.

Some have said that if you are injured in combat, you are less likely to die in Iraq, than you are if you were in a catastrophic car accident on the interstate. Although the claim if historic survivability rates in combat has some detractors, it cannot be disputed that the advancements in combat medicine after nearly a decade of war has dramatically improved acute care for all Americans.

Don’t believe me – ask Gabrielle Giffords, whose life was arguably saved by military surgeons.

What Does the Budget Crisis on the Doorstep of DoD Mean for Military Families and Wounded Warriors?

Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the uncertainty over the Pentagon budget and the failure of Congress to pass a budget for the Department for this year is creating a “crisis on my doorstep.”

On January 26th, Secreatry Gates stated that to continue without a budget from Congress would be “the worst of all possible reductions,” Gates told reporters. “That’s how you hollow out a military even in wartime.”

In an article in DefenseNews, authors predicted that the Department of Defense would be “unable to launch new programs and running out of money to pay its troops.”

Secretary Gates promised to do all he can to ensure military families and wounded service members are taken care of.

“I will do everything in my power to protect all the money associated with family programs, and I mean that,” the secretary said. “I will protect the money associated with family programs and with wounded warriors, and so on.”

The clock is ticking.  On March 4th, the Department will no longer have Congressional authority to spend money at levels exceeding those authorized in 2010, and the likelyhood of a year long continuing budget resolution would mean that “this new Congress would be responsible for a cut that’s nearly twice the size of our fiscal ’12 proposal, and much, much more damaging.” said Gates.

Read Secretary Gates’ full remarks HERE.

The question of the day – what will actually happen after March 4th?