This post will be lengthy, and I apologize in advance.

The recent ruckus at the University of Washington concerning the honoring of military heroes brought a few interesting facts to light.

On the agenda at the same time the Boyington resolutions were being considered were two other, differing resolutions.

One was R-12-27  A Resolution in Support of the Right of Military Recruiters to be Present on Campus.  You can read the text for itself, the title is self explanatory.  And it comes as no real shock that it was tabled, indefinitely.  Essentially dead without a vote.  No bias there.

The other was the  Yang to its Yin: R-12-29  A Resolution Admonishing the Discriminatory Military Recruitment at the University of Washington.  Again, this one is fairly self explanatory.  What needs explaining is the discriminatory conduct of the military that they so righteously condemn.  At issue is the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy toward homosexual service members.  

I won’t debate the merits of the DADT policy, except to say there are equally passionate arguments on both sides of the debate.

What is at stake is federal funding.  Federal law requires access to Military Recruiters on any campus that accepts federal funding.  In the case of the UW it amounts to a huge sum.  Should the school actually ban recruiters it would be devastating.

As a measure of protest (again ignoring the merits of the argument) I really have no issue with it, except that it is part of a growing and I believe connected trend to excise the military from the schools.

You see, there is a similar action taking place locally:  Seattle’s initiative I-86, which likewise addresses Military Recruiters.  The initiative is sponsored by a group called College Not Combat.  They are collecting signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot that would discourage the military from recruiting at Seattle Public Schools.   

Both of these attempts to bar or discourage recruiters are not legally binding so these are at best shouts in the wind, but they are both addressing the issue, at least in part, from the same issue:  the DADT policy.