BACK TO NACUANOTE

FN53.  Id. at 1311.  As the Court explained: “Prior to the adoption of the Solomon Amendment’s equal-access requirement, law schools ‘expressed’ their disagreement with the military by treating military recruiters differently from other recruiters.  But these actions were expressive only because the law schools accompanied their conduct with speech explaining it.  For example, the point of requiring military interviews to be conducted on the undergraduate campus is not ‘overwhelmingly apparent.’  An observer who sees military recruiters interviewing away from the law school has no way of knowing whether the law school is expressing its disapproval of the military, all the law school’s interview rooms are full, or the military recruiters decided for reasons of their own that they would rather interview someplace else.”  Id. at 1310-11.