My e-mail response to anti-JAG e-mail

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: JAG RECRUITING
From: "Eric"
Date: Fri, September 24, 2010 6:32 pm
To: [REDACTED]
Cc: [REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colleagues,

Chris inspires me to voice the opinion of another "student/veteran,
[former] citizen/soldier" at Rutgers Law.

I applaud Rutgers' decision to support JAG recruitment on campus despite
opposition to the "don't ask, don't tell" federal law. I believe DADT
federal law should change and sexual orientation is not justified as a
federally mandated basis to deter military service. And I support the
current efforts by our government to reform the law so honorable gay
soldiers will no longer have to bear the unfair burden of DADT.

I also believe as a former enlisted soldier that it would be tragic should
Rutgers Law ever discourage us from serving the highly deserving
population of America's military community. In my time wearing the
uniform, JAG was a critical resource relied upon by my fellow soldiers in
addressing a myriad of issues. In light of the tasks delegated by our
nation to soldiers today, I would venture that JAG attorneys are more
important than ever for soldiers who must deal with legal issues
compounded by and related to extraordinarily trying deployments. In
today's world especially, to deter the finest attorneys our nation - and
Rutgers Law - can produce from military service would be unconscionable,
and I'm grateful we does not take part in that sordid practice. Moreover,
the influence of JAG attorneys goes beyond their soldier clients. JAG has
key roles wherever our military is engaged, from judiciary and government
building, to shaping important organizational relationships, to
interpreting law of war for commanders in the heat of combat. As such, it
is not an exaggeration that JAG attorneys are a critical component of
shaping our future.

I'm proud that Rutgers Law, by supporting JAG recruitment on campus,
chooses to be a constructive force in our children's history and provide
the legal support our soldiers need and deserve.

Eric
2L

> Dean [REDACTED],
>
> For the now five semesters I have received this e-mail and
> it has been disappointing each and every time. Having now had class
> with you I feel I can respond without feeling/appearing
> disrespectful.
>
> I am disheartened in the tone and manner of this note. I am
> conflicted, as someone who is obviously vested in the honor of
> serving our fine country and also as someone who does not
> particularly agree with the DADT policy. My issue is not with a
> protest of the policy, nor with a protest of the Solomon Amendment,
> but instead with the vehicle and the method.
> Particularly, I would note that both DADT and Solomon are
> legislative policies, not set by any of the branches of the military. They
> are set similarly to the regulations that the blood bank must follow in
> prohibiting the donation of blood by gays and lesbians. When you
> commented on that policy you noted "The Blood Bank is not the author
> of the regulations that require it to ask these questions, and I can
> think of no better means of protesting than to arm the Blood Bank
> with the stack of potential donors it had to turn away, as it lobbies
> for changes in the regulations." In contrast you note "The law
> school community is committed to fight JAG's discrimination through
> appropriate political and legal action" Sir, respectfully, it is not
> JAG's policy. It is a policy mandated to JAG through the legislature.
> You are correct if you assert the military is not lobbying for change to
> the regulation. Simply put, we cannot. The rules against political
> involvement of the military are longstanding in this country for good
> reason. Big powerful militaries with political agendas tend to lead down
> bad paths. However, In February of 2010, Secretary Gates directed not
> only a review of the policy by the Joint Chiefs, to provide
> recommendations for an alternative, but also review of the procedures by
> which it is implemented. I know this is happening because every time I
> sign on to the Army server to get my email I am prompted to participate in
> the study by the Army as to the effects of the DADT policy, it is quite
> literally the first screen that comes
> up.
>
> My fear is that the animus is directed at the wrong target. I
> support the schools push for change, but if we are to aim such a
> powerful weapon as this school is at a target, we need be sure we are
> aimed at the correct one. Just as blood donation is a crucial event
> worthy of encouragement, there are many who see military service
> similarly and I for one am disappointed by the tone set forth by this
> recurring e-mail.
>
> Again I mean no disrespect by this note. It is but one
> student/veteran, citizen/soldier perspective.
>
> Respectfully
> Chris
>
>
>> TO: ALL STUDENTS
>> CC: ALL FACULTY AND STAFF
>>
>> RE: ON-CAMPUS RECRUITING BY THE MILITARY
>>
>> Please take note that recruiters from the various branches of the
>> United States Military will be on our campus, recruiting law students
>> for JAG employment. The dates on which they will be here are as
>> follows:
>>
>> Army JAG - September 28 and 29, 2010
>> Navy General Counsel - October 15, 2010
>>
>> Please note further that it is the policy of the faculty of Rutgers Law
>> School, as well as the Association of American Law Schools, that
>> employment recruiters who discriminate on the basis of race, gender,
>> ethnicity, creed, handicap, age, or sexual orientation not be permitted
>> to use the facilities of the Career Services Office. The Faculty
>> strongly reaffirms its commitment to that policy. Due to the so-called
>> Solomon Amendment, however, which would withhold certain federal funds,
>> including student work-study and Perkins loan funds, from institutions
>> that deny access to military recruiters, the University has required the
>> law school to permit access to the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General
>> Corps, U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General Corps and the U.S. Navy
>> Judge Advocate General Corps. The Faculty states strongly that the
>> so-called Solomon Amendment is morally wrong. Discrimination against
>> gay and lesbian people is completely unacceptable --as unacceptable as
>> any other discrimination. The law school community is committed to
>> fight JAG's discrimination through appropriate political and legal
>> action.
>>
>> [REDACTED], Esq.
>> Senior Assistant Dean of Student Affairs
>> [REDACTED]

Eric