If SF State students refuse to allow military recruiters on campus, it stands to lose $20 million of federal funding annually.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday to uphold the Solomon Amendment, a law that denies federal funding to universities that do not provide equal access to military recruiters that other job recruiters get.

The plaintiffs, a coalition of law schools who formed the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), made the case that the Solomon Amendment forced schools to associate with the military and therefore infringed on their rights to freedom of speech. They also argued that the law was in conflict with established non-discrimination policies on sexual orientation that most universities adhere to.

The first amendment argument failed to convince the court, which saw this as an issue of Congress’s constitutionally mandated power to “raise and support armies”.

“As a general matter, the Solomon Amendment regulates conduct, not speech,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in the unanimous opinion. “It affects what law schools must do—afford equal access to military recruiters—not what they may or may not say.”

David Greene, executive director and staff counsel of the First Amendment Project, said that the court did not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the law schools' commitment to fight discrimination, but that the Solomon Amendment did not restrict freedom of speech or association.

“No one is going to believe that the teachers endorse employers who recruit on campus, and if it bothered you so much you would refuse the funding,” said Greene.

International Relations major and vice president of the College Republicans Mike DeGroff, 21, thinks SF State should put their money where their mouth is.

"We are very happy that the Supreme Court unanimously upheld Solomon," said DeGroff via e-mail. "Universities are not entitled by any constitutional or God-given right to any federal dollars, and the Federal Government is within its right to set conditions regarding receipt of these funds. If SFSU is so morally opposed to the military on campus, it should simply give up its federal funds"

Anita Silvers, a professor of philosophy who teaches ethics and law at SF State said the theory that FAIR used to argue its case was ingenious, but ultimately too tenuous to challenge the law. She said that the effect of the ruling would be a setback in enforcing anti-discrimination policies.

“What’s unfortunate is that the court appears to some people to have responded by assigning the Department of Defense even greater authority to impose its values than even the Department of Defense thought it had,” said Silvers.

She said that congress is the place in which to fight the issue of military policies that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

“This is really a political issue about the fundamental fairness and respect that citizens should give to each other,” said Silvers, “Its not about freedom of speech its about freedom to be yourself.”

*This article has been amended from its original version.