Oracle Online

This resolution conflicted with the Solomon Amendment, which stipulates that colleges cannot ban recruiters from campus if they receive federal funding.

As the year progressed, some of the protestors seemed to lose interest and the recruitment issue faded. “Last fall was nice,” Hanson said. “No one protested anything, not even the recycling bin fiasco. We had a really complacent campus.”

That changed in February, when military recruiters visited the law school. Immediately student orgs spoke out against the military’s policies, leading to violent confrontations in which several vehicles were overturned and set on fire by irate military recruiters.

Hanson joined in, allegedly chasing a protestor for two blocks before catching her and hitting her repeatedly. The protestor, who wished to remain anonymous, required six stitches and intensive counseling.

Safety and Security soon restored order by threatening to put up fliers identifying the protestors.

Tensions still remained high throughout campus. On March 6 the Supreme Court, in an 8-0 ruling, upheld the Solomon Amendment. They also affirmed the right of students and campuses to protest military recruitment, leading Hamline’s administration to fear a resurgence of activism.

The response was strong and decisive. Hanson immediately declared, in a campus-wide e-mail, that protestors would not be allowed on campus. “There is a clear and present danger of a small, but disruptive, group of students will try to incite meaningful change on campus, and therefore we must act preemptively to keep such a tragedy from occurring,” the e-mail read.

Several members of that group were quick to criticize the decision. However, due to the new policy they had to voice their criticisms off-campus, so no other students actually heard what they had to say.