OK, so it's not as bad as all that, but I've felt less like a liberal since moving to New York and starting law school than I have since I renounced libertarianism in high school and conservatism in middle school. Nor is this a function of having friends in low places; rather, it's more to do with finding so many people who are far more left than I am.

One example of this is the debate over the Solomon Amendment and JAG recruitment on campus. As noted elsewhere, I'm opposed to both sex-discriminatory policies by the military and to Congressional legislation that would force schools to accept the performance of such discrimination on their own campuses. However, I'm also in favor of ensuring that members of the military have access to legal services, and that politically liberal viewpoints are represented in JAG (especially with the advent of military tribunals for detainees in the war on terror).

So this past spring, when our Student Senate was voting on a resolution to express the student body's displeasure with the continued presence of JAG recruiters on campus, I attended my first (and probably last and only) meeting. There I proposed amending the resolution to include a plan to assist students who wanted to interview with JAG off-campus in doing so. Not only did this idea go down in flames, but the resolution instead was amended with a rather pointless expression of the Student Senate's support for our men and women in uniform.

That night I had an e-mail exchange with the person who had proposed the resolution; as I haven't asked permission to post his replies, I'm only including my messages, and will summarize his response as being that the military should be treated no differently than any other discriminatory employer:

I'm glad to see that your proposed resolution was passed, but I'm worried that it will be, to some extent, just "more of the same," without effecting noticeable changes in how Columbia and JAG interact. I was very disappointed that the friendly amendment to facilitate off campus interviews with JAG -- thus permitting JAG-interested students to interview without violating Columbia's nondiscrimination policy -- did not pass. I spoke to [a Student Senator] this afternoon, and he said that he felt it may have been a victim of the rushed schedule (as the resolution itself nearly was).

I was wondering if, as part of the education effort regarding the Solomon Amendment that OUTLAWs is launching, the organization would be interested in adding the facilitation of off campus JAG interviews to its agenda. Such an accomodation would make it very clear that OUTLAWs and Columbia Law School generally are not in any way anti-military or even anti-JAG qua JAG, but simply anti-discrimination and anti-overriding the school's freedom to determine which employers are welcome on campus and which are not.

This is a concern for me because I think that the present system is a poor one. Students who see JAG as one of the OCI opportunities are not informed about the alternative ways to meet with the recruiter. Ultimately, the goal would be for all JAG-interested students to have their interviews off-campus, and no one signing up for an on-campus interview. It is, to some extent, a compromise position: JAG-interested students could do their LGBT classmates the courtesy of not violating Columbia's nondiscrimination policy, and in turn could understand how to interview away from campus.

Please let me know if you think this is a possible program. The main thing I envision is having an e-mail go out to the student body before the OCI signups open, explaining the Solomon Amendment and the student body's affirmation of both Columbia's freedom of association/ nondiscrimination policy and the desire of some students to work for JAG, and how the two need not be in conflict.

----

Not being a Student Senate member, I wasn't eligible to vote for or against the
> resolution, but I felt that a resolution that was just reinforcing the present course without including substantial new initiatives was not good legislation.

Off-campus interviews do appear to be available; I was told by [a 3L], AFTER my interview, that I could have called the recruiter and arranged for an interview off campus. What bothers me is that this isn't made known to students, so anyone who sees JAG on the OCI website is likely to assume that on-campus interviewing is her only option.

There are people at Columbia who are interested in providing legal services to soldiers and their families. While the ideal state would be for all students to be able to do so without discrimination, it seems to me that the next-best state is not to have students at liberal, elite universities un-represented in JAG, but for the interested students to comply with Columbia's nondiscrimination policy by not interviewing on-campus. It would be nice to see the Senate doing something constructive to minimize or eliminate JAG's presence on campus while also recognizing that some students want to work for JAG.

----

I realize that the administration cannot do anything that treats JAG unequally -- including encouraging people to book their JAG interview off-campus -- but this is why I thought the Student Senate or another student organization would be the appropriate venue for action. As [Student Senator] said to me, there's only so much that the Senate can do to affect what the administration does, but I think there's a lot more room for students themselves to organize a response.

Basically I don't want to create an environment at Columbia where there's no way to support nondiscrimination against LGBT classmates without giving up an opportunity for service that some people may value. If the message is strictly "We don't want JAG on campus" without any "and we'll help you interview off campus," then I worry about the split it may create, with people interested in JAG feeling under attack. I don't know, maybe there's no point in a compromise position. I have no past experience with student government or leadership in student orgs at CLS, so if everyone thinks that I'm seeing a problem where there is none, I'll shut up.

We have received a number of inquiries about the University's policy toward military recruiting, and its application to the Law School. As a community, we are mindful of the military's special status as an institution that protects the nation. Needless to say, we admire the courage and self-sacrifice of our troops. We also appreciate the particular importance of military lawyers in an age of global terrorism, when national security and personal liberty must be balanced in difficult new contexts. As the Columbia Spectator has observed, "we need good military lawyers and military judges more than ever. Columbia can provide them." For this reason, we feel acutely that some of our extraordinary students are excluded from the military due to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. This fact cuts against a deeply held conviction of our community: Columbia Law School has a long-standing nondiscrimination policy, under which employers who use Law School facilities in recruiting are asked to pledge that they will not discriminate based on factors including race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

As a result, the Law School has had to balance two goals: honoring our nondiscrimination policy, while enabling students who are eligible for employment in the U.S. military to consider these important opportunities. In principle, there are various ways to balance these goals. Before 2001, military recruiting was coordinated by the University's Government Affairs office, instead of by the Law School's Office of Career Services, and interviews were conducted nearby, instead of in a Law School building. However, since 2001, the U.S. Department of Defense ("DOD") has rejected this approach, insisting instead on equal access to our recruiting process, based on its interpretation of federal legislation known as the Solomon Amendment. In 2001, the Law School agreed to provide the military with equal access in order to ensure that the University would continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for medical research, financial aid, and other important programs. Allowing the military equal access continues to be the policy of Columbia University.

The Army Judge Advocate General's recruiters will be on campus THIS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2005, to interview candidates.

Federal law requires Columbia & other federally funded institutions to allow JAG on campus, despite the fact that military policies discriminate against gay and lesbian citizens. This discrimination is in direct violation of our university's non-discrimination policy.

Please join the Outlaws in protesting this injustice.

DAY: Thursday, September 27, 2005
TIME: 8:45-10 AM
PLACE: Amsterdam Ave, b/w 115th & 116th Sts. (in front of WJW Hall)

Bring your signs, your friends & your outrage!

Sincerely,
The Outlaws

I don't even remember when I got my two recordings of Schubert's Winterreisse. I have a vague sense (actually, now that I'm writing it, more than a vague sense--thanks, Jen) that one of them was gifted me by a friend who shares my penchant for the brilliant liedster, Ian Bostridge. The other recording I have, I have no sense about how it got there. Certainly, in my blind past, I had great taste: it's hard to go wrong with Thomas Quasthoff, and despite the ongoing argument between fans of both singers (the intersection of their following, I've found, tend to be near null), I appreciate both for each of its nuances.

At any rate, yesterday, amidst a flurry of tea, preparing lectures, translating Cicero, and keeping up on the current yeast genetics literature, I found time to put Schubert's famous Winterreisse on in the background. To be honest, I'd heard about it on whim from an old professor who claimed it was one of the best song cycles out there. I was dubious, but thought I'd give it a shot.

And to be honest, for the longest while, I didn't think too much of it, until giving it another listen last night. It's jarring at first: I generally don't go for the German Romanticism Schubert's so good at composing. It seems artificial--contrived even. But here's where my Midwestern education of being able to grin and bear it paid off.

It takes a couple of listenings to to finally realize, but there are some wonderful moments here, just buried in the middle of the song cycle. The piece that first struck me was Die Krähe, buried well in the middle of the song cycle--it's not that I didn't realize other great moments later. It's just that this one popped out at me: somewhat haunting in melody, somewhat Raven-esque in its imagery, it was, is, and will continue to be, dark, and perfect enough for none other than Hallowe'en.

But that was like breaking open a piñata--for some reason, after beginning to appreciate one song, they all seemed to contribute a bit more: Das Wirsthaus, Die Post, &c., &c.

So now I'm hopelessly hooked. Time can only tell if I'll accumulate enough chutzpah to perform any one of these myself, but until then, I'll be listening to the greats doing only the greatest--over, and over again.

Jacob Levy has a post up about Serenity, and concurs with Dan Drezner's glowing assessment. Levy also recommends Proof, which was a great play and which I will see as soon as I see Serenity. As soon as I find the time.