July 5, 2007

Federal Docket Management System Office

1160 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1160

**RE: Department of Defense Proposed Rules Implementing 10 U.S.C. § 983,
32 C.F.R. Part 216**

**Docket No. DoD-2006-OS-0136, RIN 0790-AI15**

Dear Madam or Sir:

On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of collective members of the
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc. (the Task Force) and the Human
Rights Campaign, we write to oppose several provisions in the proposed
regulations implementing 10 U.S.C. § 983 (the "Solomon Amendment").

Founded in 1973 and incorporated in 1974, the Task Force is the oldest
national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) advocacy
organization. We work to build the political power of the LGBT community
from the ground up by organizing broad-based campaigns to defeat
anti-LGBT referenda and advance pro-LGBT legislation, by training
activists, and by building the organizational capacity of our movement.
As part of a broader social justice movement, we work to create a nation
that respects the diversity of human expression and identity and creates
opportunity for all.

The Human Rights Campaign, which represents a grassroots force of over
700,000 members, is America\'s largest civil rights organization working
to achieve gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring
and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against
GLBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness
and equality for all.

We join to oppose specifically the following provisions:

-   The provision defining "\[e\]qual in quality and scope" as "\[t\]he
    same access to campus and students on campus provided to the
    nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable access." Proposed
    § 216.3(e); *see also* Proposed § 216.1(b).

-   The provision requiring schools to enforce "time, place, and manner
    policies ... such that the military recruiters \[do not\] experience
    an inferior or unsafe recruiting climate." Proposed § 216.4(a)(5).

-   The provision forbidding schools from having "polic\[ies\] or
    practice\[s\] \[that\] in effect den\[y\] students permission to
    participate, or ha\[ve\] prevented students from participating in
    \[military\] recruiting activities." Proposed § 216.4(a)(6).

-   The provision requiring the government to investigate a school that
    "is unwilling to declare in writing, in response to an inquiry
    \[from the military\] that the covered school does not have a policy
    or practice of prohibiting, or in effect preventing, \[military
    recruiters\] from the same access to campuses or access to students
    on campuses provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most
    favorable access ...." Proposed § 216.4(d)(8).

These provisions are impermissibly vague. They also are
counterproductive, in that they substitute the professional judgment of
experienced career placement officers, who are best suited to determine
how to best serve the unique needs of military recruiters and interested
students, with the inflexible and inexperienced demands of

the Department of Defense. Other institutions, particularly the National
Association for Law Placement (NALP) and the Forum for Academic and
Institutional Rights, Inc. ("FAIR"), have highlighted these and other
deficiencies of these provisions in detail, and the Task Force and HRC
share their expressed concerns.

The Task Force and HRC write separately to emphasize that, while
imposing unreasonable administrative burdens and uncertainty, these
provisions are unnecessary and unwarranted. Existing regulations already
require that universities provide favored access to military recruiters;
because of the Solomon Amendment, the armed forces are the only
employers in the U.S. that can force their way onto university campuses
despite the fact that they openly discriminate against lesbian, gay, and
bisexual individuals. Moreover, they enjoy access that is "at least
equal in quality and scope" to that afforded nondiscriminatory
employers. 32 C.F.R. Part 216.4(3).

The proposed regulations unreasonably would shift the military's
recruiting access from favored to "most favorable." They would define
access "equal in quality and scope" as "\[t\]he same access . . .
provided to the nonmilitary recruiter receiving the most favorable
access." Proposed § 216.3(e). While exposing universities to
indeterminable standards carrying severe penalties for their breach,
this proposed shift from preferential to most preferential treatment
would do little, if anything, to enhance the objectives of recruiting
access.

Aside from their deleterious impact on universities, the significance of
these changes is largely symbolic and entirely unacceptable. It violates
basic civil rights principles for the U.S. Government to insist upon the
most preferential treatment for an employer that operates with
discriminatory standards in recruiting. This is made more egregious by
the fact that the employer at issue is the U.S. military, which, because
of the federal law known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," 10 U.S.C. § 654,
strives to advance freedom abroad while continuing at home to deny
lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals freedom to serve openly.

In fact, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is the only law in America that
actually dictates firing individuals because of their sexual
orientation. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center shows that the
overwhelming majority (79%) of Americans support open service by
lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an
increasingly unpopular and outdated blemish on the federal law books.
The proposed regulations should not embed its vestiges further into
federal policy.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc. and the Human Rights
Campaign strongly oppose the proposed provisions listed above and urge
that they be fixed.

Sincerely,

![](media/image1.png){width="1.8118055555555554in"
height="0.43472222222222223in"}
![](media/image2.png){width="1.5729166666666667in"
height="0.3770833333333333in"}

Dave Noble Allison Herwitt

Public Policy and Government Affairs Director Legislative Director

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Human Rights Campaign