Here's what I disagree with. Universities state openly that they want corporate recruiters and their companies to sign a non-discriminatory statement, specifying that they do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation etc. Evey recruiter on campus is required to follow that policy. Why should the military be treated differently?
larry On 3/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hat wrote: > > It's the power of the purse... if the schools don't want recruiters on > > their camuses then don't take the money...... riiiiight. > > > > Weeellll, but let's think about this for a second. Where does the > federal government get *its* money from? Taxes. And where do most of > the taxes come from? College graduates. > > The military may protect the country, but college graduates pay for > their guns and ammo. The top 10% of earners (of which almost all are > college graduates or attended college) control about 70% of the > nation's wealth. The bottom 50% of American earners, by contrast, > control just 2% of the wealth. > > So, extending your point, the top 10% of earners should decide whether > or not colleges have to have recruiters? I dunno ... > > From my perspective, the recruiters shouldn't be banned because that's > as good of a career path as any other. If the colleges are being true > to education, they should let the military compete in the free market > of ideas that their college should be advocating. > > In the same way, a college should not be able to ban Lockheed or > Raytheon from recruiting just because they make weapons systems. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:199309 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
