statute. we ve always thought that our policy was in compliance with the statute. the appropriate thing for me to do, really the obligation that i owed to my school and its long standing policy, was to go back to our old accommodation policy which allows the military full access, but through the veterans organization. when dod came to us and said that it thought that that was insufficient, that it wanted to essentially ignore the third circuit decision, because it was taking it up to the supreme court when they came back to us, we went through a discussion of a couple of months, and made a decision to do exactly what dod wanted. well, you did what dod wanted when they told the president and the counsel for the university they were going to lose some $300 million if dean kagan s policy was not reversed. isn t that a fact? senator sessions, we did what dod asked for,
and after dod came to us and after dod told us that it wanted law schools to essentially ignore the third circuit decision that it was going to take that decision to the supreme court and that it wanted law schools to continue to do what they had been doing. we did change back and we did precisely what dod asked us to do and dod never withheld well, you did not, ms. kagan, you didn t do what the dod asked you to do. just answer this, put your legal hat on for a second. the third circuit opinion never stayed the enforcement of the solomon amendment at harvard, did it? did that law remain in effect? senator sessions, the question was no, that s my question to you. did the law remain in effect at all times in harvard? the solomon amendment remained in effect but we always thought we were acting in
never did anything that i didn t approve of. with respect to the decision that you re talking about, this was a joint decision that larry and i made that because dod thought what we were doing was inappropriate, we should, in fact, reverse what we had done. you know, that period lasted for period of six months in my six-year deanship and long before the supreme court issued its ruling in the fair versus rumsfeld case, we were doing exactly what dod asked us to do. it was your testimony that the decision you made immediately after the third circuit opinion, you concluded was inappropriate. you and president summers and you reversed that policy later? senator sessions, what i did after the third circuit decision was to say, look, the only appellate court to have considered this question has
because we have always tried to be in compliance with the solomon amendment. i thought that we were when dod, dod had long held that we were. when dod came back to us and said, no, notwithstanding the third circuit decision. we maintain our insistence that you re out of compliance with the solomon amendment. we said okay. well, in fact, you are punishing the military. they protest that they have that you spoke to on campus was that on the very time the next building or one or two buildings nearby the military was meeting there. some of the military veterans when they met with you the first time expressed concern about the hostile atmosphere on the campus against the military. didn t they express that to you? senator sessions, i think, as i said to senator leahy that i
and created a different constitution for america. so partly the change has come in that way. you about partly they they come outside the formal amendment process as well. and what you said about plessy and brown is absolutely right. that if you look at the specific intent of the drafters of the 14th amendment, they thought the 14th amendment was perfectly con sis 2010 segregated schools. i mean, you just have to you can t really argue otherwise as a historical matter. in brown, the court said otherwise. you know, step by step by step, the decision by decision and large part because of what justice marshall did, you know, we got to place the court said it is inconsistent with the principle of equal protection of the laws that the drafters of the 14th amend laid down. it is inconsistent with that