One of the “sure-fire” issues Kagan detractors have been trying to sink their teeth into in an attempt to scuttle her Supreme Court nomination is the allegation that she is “an anti-military zealot” who has a clear “disdain for the military” and for the security of our country.
Why? Because when she became dean of Harvard, she continued the practice established by her predecessor of letting the placement office assist military recruiters and letting Harvard students have adequate access to those recruiters.
In contrast to the thrust of my post, “Kagan Must Be Stopped, at Any Cost,” this is no satire and you can read the facts—in context, in perspective, and in detail—in an excellent Washington Post column by Walter Dellinger, “How I know Kagan isn’t anti-military.”
Just to get your interest, this is Dellinger’s riveting conclusion:
No action Kagan took as dean remotely suggests anything but the greatest respect for the military. Even when the law school’s anti-discrimination policy effectively precluded placement-office assistance to military recruiters, she permitted student veteran groups to use law-school premises to facilitate military recruitment of Harvard students. At no point were military recruiters ever barred from the campus or banned from recruiting Harvard law students. And military veterans who entered Harvard Law School when Kagan was dean have praised her efforts to ensure they were welcomed and respected for their service.
Separately, it is true that as dean, Kagan expressed strong personal opposition to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” restrictions on service by gays and lesbians in the military. But that is not an anti-military position. Rather, it is the position now shared by many senior military leaders and the commander in chief.
Finally, talk about riveting, this is how Dellinger starts his column:
The nomination of an anti-military leftist to the Supreme Court would make for a riveting story. But in the case of Elena Kagan, it’s just not true.
