Wouldn't it be better to give the STUDENTS the option of boycotting military recruiters if they dislike their policies? Why should the University be "Big Brother" and limit student choice? Who is Amy Gutmann to tell Penn students you can't interview for the armed services? Penn students are intelligent enough to make their own decision. Penn's amicus brief is a waste of the University's legal talents and time. Don Allison '72 New York City donald_allison@msn.com

Amazing so the University of Pennsylvania is getting ready to take the US military to court because it stand to lose $$$$ if it bans recruiters from Campus due to it discriminatory practices? Yet I wonder why there are currently no women on any MALE SPORTS TEAMS AT PENN??? Can you explain this madam President? I mean isn't this "gasp" discrimination?? Then if it is not yourself that sets this policy but the NCAA, then I must ask why are they then allowed on campus if they have discriminatory practices?? I was told by your own athletic director that it would be easier to allow a female on a male team, than a male on say a female swim team. Well isn't this discriminatory? I was also told that if a male is allowed on a female team according to NCAA standards the team is now considered a male team. Wow sounds like discrimination to me Mrs. Guttman. I was even more surprised that as President of the University your office does not even know what it Policy IS when it comes to such questions. So as a member of the Armed Forces I am perplexed why are we not allowed to recruit on Campus but the NCAA is allowed on campus when it has policies that may be in effect discriminatory? My guess is it too comes down to money, if the football team is not allowed on campus per se look at all the money Penn is subject to lose in the form of ticket sales, merchandize, etc. Seems to me your university wants to have it both ways, ban the military for discriminatory practices from your Campus yet somehow retain government funding. While at the same time actively promoting your NCAA sports teams so you can continue to rake in the money off your sports teams. So I must ask Pres. Gutmann is it the discrimination, or the fact your campus seems to be blatantly anti Military??? I won't even get into the discriminatory practices related to quotas for admission, handicapped players on said sports teams, etc that I am sure your school also "discriminates" in some way shape and form. ronald pritchett ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

The military provides secures or rights of freedom and liberty through defending the constitution. They allow us to enjoy this freedom of choice. The choice is not whether the military is allowed on campus, but whether they want the money or not. This is a ridiculous waste of university resources to write a friend of the court brief. I support the military and its troops and I feel it should not be denied access to the top students. If you don't want to join THEN DON'T scott, Consultant NYC

Why just think if the following were to be implemented recruiters would not need to visit a sh*thole like Penn to begin with looking for recruits would they Mrs. Gutman. So I propose the following, simply tie all governmental forms of educational aid from interest free loans to Pell Grants to government scholarships, to this service. Basically, it would work like this. Why should students be given a "blank check" by the government to go to college? Where the majority will flunk out, spend the time so drunk they can't attend class and in short waste taxpayer money? Instead it should be thus, if you want any type of government assistance be it Welfare, student aid, even unemployment, it should be tied into whether or not you did a year of Government Service period. As a matter of fact, before you even get unemployment if able bodied enough to pass the physical you should be required to perform some sort of government service and whola no longer unemployed are we? Why should you get a free handout from the government when you have done what to deserve it, graduate high school (and considering how dumbed down even that has become this to is questionable). Another solution is do what a lot of the countries mentioned in Ms Mulhern's article do, and which she conveniently left out. Tie government service into education. For example for every year you spend in Government service, that is one year of TUITION FREE COLLEGE. The only problem with this is that colleges, being not the educational centers they are purported to be but rather the money hungry greedy bastards they in effect are, will complain like mad. How dare they take the money we make in tuition fees to pay ex liberal hippies that do nothing but badmouth the government who also have tenure and let students go to college virtually free. Noted I did not say problems would not arise under this system but I am sure if we say took all GOVERNMENT FUNDING away from Universities who did not want to "play" in this program many would come around (same holds true why should schools get government money for doing nothing for the government TO INCLUDE ALLOWING ROTC ON THEIR CAMPUSES). Both programs mentioned above are just two ideas the country could possibly use with no DRAFT BEING NEEDED period, it is simple want to attend college and not help the government fine pay for it yourself a built in "opt-out" if you will. The same for the schools don' want to be involved in the program, fine you find a way to fund your own research etc without the government. In short today government service is seen as a "monster" that will somehow damage the students entire life if they partake in any way shape and form. This can be seen by the number of schools and universities that disallow ROTC programs, recruiters on campus, organize and promote antimilitary programs etc. What needs to be remembered is who were the first on scene recently during the hurricanes in Louisiana? That's right the military with food, water, shelter, electricity, medical support, transportation and other valuable material and manpower. What was the Mayor of New Orleans very words "where is the military". Unfortunately Mayor they are all in college, doing everything they can to prevent others from joining up and giving back to the country that gives them so much. As the military numbers continue to decline these students would be hard pressed to remember the following. What will happen when the next hurricane, blizzard, flood, terrorist attack occurs and the question is asked where is the military, only this time nobody shows up, because everyone thinks such service is somehow "beneath" them. sincerely Ronald Pritchett Staff Sergeant, US Army Ronald Pritchett ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

There's a really simple solution to all of this, let gay people into the military (openly). If there are gay people willing to serve, and we're currently facing shortages, doesn't that make sense? Mac Philly

There are already Gay people in the military, they just can't openly express it. Why is this a problem? It basically boils down to keep your sex life private period. The problem is that a hell of a lot of people who have NEVER served think they know what is best for the military. Here's a clue guys the military still has laws against adultery, sodomy, it is against regulation for me to hug, kiss, or even hold hands with my girlfriend when in uniform (yeah they don't enforce it imagine the firestorm of those who are just returning from deployment when met by significant others at the airports). So what is the problem with simply keeping your sexual orientation PRIVATE as it should be?? Furthermore you think the military has problems with sexual assaults and harrassment now???? Ronald Pritchett ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

Mac makes THE point. Ronald - this is not about Men vs. Women, nor Don is it about the University's disdain for the military. This is about the military's (cowardly) discriminatory policy of excluding people from service based solely on their sexuality... imagine if Jews or Blacks were not allowed to serve? This "problem" could easily be rectified by removing a policy that has absolutely no foundation aside from bigotry. Given the current recruiting difficulty the Army is experiencing, wouldn't this make sense? Are you aware of how many Arabic speaking service members have been let go from the army as a result of "Don't ask, don't tell"? (It should be called, "don't ask, but only don't tell if you are gay"). Penn is merely supporting the position that the military must comply with the same non-discrimination policies that any other on-campus recruiters (or the University itself, for that matter) must comply with. Ronald, your point is wasted, because Penn is fully compliant with Title IX, which mandates a balance of athletic funds between sexes. Furthermore, it's ridiculous (and obnoxious) to imply that homosexuals would face the same challenges (or advantages) that athletes competing in a cross-gendered league would face. This argument essentially boils down to "homosexuals would not be able to fight at the same skill level as heterosexuals". As a friend of a gay (they aren't enforcing this rule too much these days) soldier, I can tell you, his muscle mass, athleticism, and willingness to shoot to kill are not in question. NYC Alumn '02

So again if you know a Gay Soldier and he is serving what again is the problem?? He got his wish he is in the military is he not?? Have you been?? Yes it has a lot to do with the college, so basically what your saying is it is ok to discriminate, just not in the form the military does it right?? So which is it, your against DISCRIMINATION IN ALL ITS FORMS, TO INCLUDE THAT PRACTICED BY UNIVERSITIES (seperate sex sports teams oh but we have equal male and female teams, well excuse me but wasn't "seperate but equal" struck down a hell of a long time ago, admission quotas, scholarship requirements based on race or ethnicity etc)OR YOUR JUST AGAINST THE MILITARY POINT BLANK???? No excuse me it is more about the money the school will lose because it doesn't want recruiters on campus (if not the GAY issue it would be the recruiting issue for the war period ala counter recruiting techniques) period. I am sure there are plenty at Penn attending on a scholarship open to only a certain sex, race, ethnic makeup, religion etc. So why does the University accept them again discrimination. Your argument just goes to show what blatant hypocritical forces are for this type of legal action. Let's see why shouldn't I be able to play basketball for Penn, never mind I suck at it that is a form of discrimination therefore should I sue the school and KEEP EVERYONE from playing simply because I can't. You folks seem to want it both ways, there is a simple solution to allow Gays to serve openly and I would even be for it, it is EVERYONE SERVES PERIOD yep even the handicapped in some capacity. Can't run, can do paperwork. Can't see, you can answer phonelines, etc. But no heaven forbid we have a draft or mandatory service. And again Gays can serve they just can't do so openly so this means what? Considering Gay marriage is still illegal in most states their partners would get what benefits anyway?? So what again is the problem Gays do Serve and as far as I can tell face no more "hardship" in doing so that I face having a live in girlfriend who because we are not married also cannot get military benefits as my spouse. Besides that you folks already bitch due to the amount of money the military spends how much more so on seperate barracks for openly gay soldiers how do you suggest we house them with the women or the guys cause I can see both sides having issues with this one. Ronald pritchett ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

Mac makes THE point. Ronald - this is not about Men vs. Women, nor Don is it about the University's disdain for the military. This is about the military's (cowardly) discriminatory policy of excluding people from service based solely on their sexuality... imagine if Jews or Blacks were not allowed to serve? So you are going to lambast me against making it a men vs women comparison but you want to compare sexuality to Religion or Race??? Seems to me that is like comparing apples to oranges as well as how does sexual orientation compare to ones race or religious background again?? I am also well (probably more than yourself) aware of the number of Arabic linguist whom were discharged because they were Gay. I am also aware of HOW MANY CLAIMED TO BE GAY them moment they realized they could go to IRAQ!!! Imagine that kinda like wow I can get bonuses like crazy for becomming an Arabic linguist which they were doing like mad, BEFORE THE WAR. Then when it looked like oh my Gosh this isn't an easy way to make $$$ I could actually have to fight in a war. Amazing how many came up with the least damaging way to leave the military to any future career they might want, simply claim to be Gay. Which also explains why the military's discharging of Gay soldiers has dropped, amazing how many want to come "out of the closet" the minute the bullets start flying. Ronald Pritchett Ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

Ronald - If people who haven't served shouldn't make policy, then I'm curious what your views on the current policy makers in Washington: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott to name a few are. You also seem to be outraged more at the fact that women can't play on the Penn Men's Basketball team than the fact that people object to the military discriminating against gays. Let's just say I have a hard time taking you at your word that you think gays should be allowed to serve. Perhaps if this is true your energy would be better spent trying to do away with what you consider to be gender discrimination in university sports. Of course, that would involve you being sincere about your tolerance and support for gay patriots. NYC Alumn '02

Then, Ronald, what is the easiest way to stop these people from leaving the military? Simple, allow gays to serve. Yes, your sexual orientation is a private thing, but you are not discharged if you openly admit to being a heterosexual. Hence it is discrimination. Stop trying to divert the topic and discuss other forms of discrimination, that is not the issue here. snipanlol, Student Penn kungapa@gmail.com

I am surprised that no one come has commented on how odd it is that, since in this case it is convenient to do so, Penn is acting like it is concerned with discrimination based upon sexual orientation. I think the U is just claiming concern over discrimination against LGBT as a means to serve its own financial and political agendas. Leave us out of it! Oh, and just a comment to people who think that LGBT should be willing to serve in silence: How can we move forward and make a positive image for our community if we are forced to hide? Many Americans have a negative opinion of the gay community. Many of us are working hard, in or out of the military, contributing to society, etc, but we can't be open in fear of losing our jobs (it is still legal to fire a person based upon sexual orientation in most states). Instead, the only image many people get of the gay community is wild drag queens or circuit party men. Serving openly would let us show that is a minority of our community, and should NOT be how we are stereotyped. Thanks and have a good weekend :-) whocares, grad student penn

Your right other types of discrimination is NOT THE ISSUE. That is what makes the lawsuit so hypocritical. Colleges are allowed to discriminate but the military can't? Other organizations that discriminate can actively recruit on Campus but the military can't? It is ok to discriminate against race, color, sex, ethnicity, religion ect when it comes to college admissions and financial aid, but when the military discriminates against Homosexuals whhoooo that is bad... You see that's not PC today how dare the military discriminate because we loathe and hate the military anyways. Nevermind colleges have been doing THE SAME EXACT THING (only not against Gays) for years!!!!.... So it isn't about the discrimination, it is the simple fact the military and government made rules (allow us to recruit on Campus or lose federal funding) Penn has been against the military FOR YEARS (ROTC, anti war, counter recruiting etc). They thought they finally had a way to get recruiters off the campus for good with the "Gay discrimination" issue. But low and behold the Solomon admendment passed stating you don't allow us access to schools you don't get federal funding. I could care less about whether or not Gay's serve cause they already do and some yes even openly depends on if the Command wants to push the issue. As stated I would even like to see it carried further and if you don't serve the government in some capacity you don't get financial aid period from said government (the first entitlement program, oohhh I graduated high school now I should get money from Uncle Sam even though I haven't done a damned thing to earn it). Now for once because the University might suffer financially because of it's own lame assed policy of banning recruiters for something THE COLLEGE IS GUILTY OF DOING, the Gay issue comes up. Rest assured snipanlol. This has far more to do with the amount of money the money hungry bast*rds at Penn stand to lose than anything to do with the military or Gay Rights Ronald Pritchett ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

Thanks for your posts Ronald. You've made it clearer than I ever could have. What's that saying about giving a man enough rope? NYC Alumn '02

Since when are gay guys banging down the door to join the military?! In fact, who, straight or gay, wants to join the military now to fight Bush's war? Certainly not his own kids, as recruiting goals haven't been met in months. And if smart, college-educated students wanted to enlist (which they don't), wouldn't they have gone to West Point or AF Academy for free instead of paying through the nose for a private university? And why are we trying to get rid of the one sure way to avoid the draft when we invade Syria/Iran? This is such a non-issue. rod

Thanks Rod for showing your blatant ignorance to all things military in your last post and again why folks who don't serve shouldn't make policy. One you just don't "go" to a military academy you have to be appointed usually by a congressman from your district to attend through a selection process worse than Penn ever dreamed up. In addition the academies don't always offer the degree programs a person might want to study. Secondly your right folks don't want to join, there are so few Gays who want to join the issue over letting them serve or not is moot. Which is why again we don't need a draft, I am all for Gays serving myself. I think everyone should serve in some capacity (I think every college student getting government assistance should have their asses in Louisiana this summer rebuilding for instance instead of us bitching about how we are going to "pay" for it, you see we already "pay" for it, the problem is the lazy bastards give nothing back for the money they already get) especially if they want to attend college on the governments dime in any way shape or form, get unemployment later on or welfare or any other government assistance in the form of "free money". What I am against is the blatent hypocrisy of University's that discriminate daily when it comes to their policies trying to strong arm the military into no longer discriminating. Yeah I am for allowing Gays in the military, just as I am a woman playing for U. of Penn football team or a male joining the women's swim team if they want, or even gasp a caucasian receiving an NAACP scholarship, but again Penn allows such activity to occur on it's campus. So who is discriminating again, you know the saying those who live in glass houses...... ronald pritchett ronald.pritchett@verizon.net

Ron, do you know how the "lazy bastards" on Pell Grants/Loans at Penn and elsewhere pay the government back? They get a high paying job and pay their taxes! Consider Pell Grants for Ivy League students an great investment in the future (certainly more of an investment that the estate tax cut...God forbid we deprive Paris Hilton of some of her billions!). You, as soldier and hence a government employee, shouldn't bitch about those in the private sector paying your salary. And no, you are not protecting my freedoms of anything by invading Iraq...only advancing the agenda of neo-cons in DoD and AEI. Why the lack of outrage of the $200 billion that we've thrown down that rathole, only to likely end up with an Islamic state allied w/Iran. You can't still say with a straight face that it was the right thing to do. And it's not that these students are "lazy", but perhaps not from a family rich enough to afford college without some support. And maybe they can't volunteer their time to aid hurricane victims because they need to get summer jobs! I would wager that you are the same type of myopic stooge that cheered at the budget cut for the National Science Foundation this year because that's just giving government money to "lazy" researcher students. Better to let the Chinese out-innovate us; not like we need anymore Googles in our economy, paying taxes for all the future misguided adventures in the "War-on-Terror". rod