the counterargument i heard was that it's unfair to expect universities to give up federal funds if they want to keep the military from recruiting because universities have become dependent on federal funds. surely someone can come up with a better counterargument

I've heard no good counterarguments against the finding itself, but I have heard that the decision is harmful because it takes the (unnecessary) logical step of saying that Congress doesn't even *have to* threaten withholding funds, and can directly mandate allowing recruitment through the "raise and support Armies" clause. I'd like to hear some debate on this. Since Congress already has the right to draft me, doesn't it sort of make sense that they can force this kind of thing? Can they make *your* business have a recruitment session once a week? Or does the "raise and support Armies" clause not relate to marketing?

One counterargument I've heard has to do with the problem with forcing a school to publicize a recruitment session, since it wouldn't exactly satisfy Congress to hold an unpublicized recruitment session. This is, in effect, forcing you to use your communication channels to do the government's work.

if the feds are giving the funds without any particular mandate to bail out private universities, etc., then can't they set whatever terms they want? Any private individual can say to a university "I'll give you x if you do y" and the university can decide to accept or reject the offer. Barring some sort of law that is advantageous to universities, i can't see why the fed's offering money (even if it is a lot of money) would be any different.

if you're saying that any university can be forced to have recruiting sessions, even if they take no money, then i definitely have a problem with that.

jon, that's exactly what the court held, as marco noted, unnecessarily.

the court was unnecessary, not marco.

Perhaps I was as well. But yes, jon, that's what I'm saying. See, e.g., the third part of this post.