I have in the past criticized law schools’ attempts to exclude military recruiters from campus. But I have to also criticize this reaction by a federal district judge (thanks to How Appealing for the pointer):
An Alabama federal judge has told Yale Law School he won’t accept its graduates for clerkships because the school blocks military recruiters from campus. . . .
Is it really fair to take the school’s actions out on innocent Yale law students? Yes, I realize that the school’s actions might themselves be seen as hurting innocent Yale law students to send a message — but that doesn’t make it right, nor does it make Yale students responsible for what the law school does.
As unfairnesses go, it’s hardly the worst: The students will doubtless have other places to go, and no-one is entitled to a clerkship job. Nor is there anything illegal or unconstitutional about this; federal judges are entitled to discriminate based on the law school an applicant went to (and often do so) unless the discrimination is utterly irrational, and I suppose this probably passes the minimum rationality test. Still, it seems to me that federal judges should strive for a higher level of fairness to applicants than the minimum required by the rational basis test — and should try hard to distinguish the guilty parties from the innocent.
UPDATE: My colleague Stephen Bainbridge has a somewhat different take.
Comments are closed.