Truth in Recruitment carries on during Covid

 Excellent article posted today in Antiwar.com  by Kate Connell and Fred Nadis about the work of Truth in Recruitment, a group like SOY in Santa Barbara, CA:

Counter-Recruitment in the Time of Covid

by Kate Connell and Fred Nadis, Truth in Recruitment Posted onSeptember 29, 2020

In 2016-17, the U.S. Army visited Santa Maria High School and nearby Pioneer Valley High School in California over 80 times. The Marines visited Ernest Righetti High School in Santa Maria over 60 times that year. One Santa Maria alumnus commented, “It’s as if they, the recruiters, are on staff.” A parent of a high school student at Pioneer Valley commented, "I consider recruiters on campus talking to 14 year olds as "grooming" young people to be more open to recruitment in their senior year. I want my daughter to have more access to college recruiters and for our schools to promote peace and nonviolent solutions to conflict."

This is a sample of what high schools, particularly in rural areas, experience nationwide, and the difficulty of confronting the presence of military recruiters on campus. While our nonprofit counter-recruitment group, Truth in Recruitment, based in Santa Barbara, California, views such military access as beyond excessive, as far as the military is concerned, now that the pandemic has closed campuses, those were the good old days. The Air Force’s Recruiting Service Commander, Maj. Gen. Edward Thomas Jr., commented to a journalist at Military.com, that the Covid-19 pandemic and high school shutdowns nationwide have made recruiting more difficult than previously.

Thomas stated that in-person recruiting at high schools was the highest yield way to recruit teenagers. “Studies that we’ve done show that, with face-to-face recruiting, when somebody is actually able to talk to a living, breathing, sharp Air Force [noncommissioned officer] out there, we can convert what we call leads to recruits at about an 8:1 ratio,” he said. “When we do this virtually and digitally, it’s about a 30:1 ratio.” With closed recruiting stations, no sporting events to sponsor or appear at, no hallways to walk, no coaches and teachers to groom, no high schools to show up at with trailers loaded with militarized video games, recruiters have shifted to social media to find likely students.

Yet the school shutdowns, combined with the economic uncertainty during the pandemic, have only made vulnerable populations more likely to enlist. The military also is aware of this. An AP reporter noted in June that in periods of high unemployment, the military becomes a more enticing option to teens from impoverished families.

This is apparent from our work. Truth in Recruitment has been working to reduce recruiter access to students in Santa Maria high schools where the demographics on some campuses are 85% Latinx students, many from immigrant farmworkers working in the fields. Nevertheless, the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District (SMJUHSD) was pleased to report in June 2020 that sixty students from all the area high schools had decided to enlist.

As a group dedicated to regulating the presence of military recruiters on campuses, and their access to students’ private information, we are seeing the consequences of both the pandemic and recruiters’ aggressive social media campaigns. Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001, high schools that receive federal funds must allow recruiters to have the same access to students as employers and colleges. This law is often cited when school districts say that they cannot regulate recruiter access to their students and schools. But the key word in the law, which shows what is possible, is the word "same." As long as school policies apply the same regulations to all types of recruiters, districts can implement policies that regulate recruiter access. Many school districts across the country have passed policies regulating recruiter access, including Austin, Texas, Oakland, California, the San Diego Unified School District, and the Santa Barbara Unified School District, where Truth in Recruitment is based.

According to federal law, while districts are required to provide student names, addresses, and parents’ phone number, families have the right to "opt out" to prevent schools from releasing to the military further information about their children. However, now that teens have their own phones, recruiters have direct access to them – following them on social media, texting and emailing them privately – and have access to their friends in the process. Because of this, parental oversight is circumvented and a family’s privacy rights are ignored. Recruiters not only gain access to student’s through their phones, but through ‘surveys’ and sign up sheets, where they ask questions such as "citizenship status?" and other confidential information.

Recruiters online tactics can be dubious. For one example, The Nation reported that on July 15, 2020,the Army’s Esports team on Twitch advertised a fake giveaway foran Xbox Elite Series 2 controller, valued at more than $200.When clicked, animated giveaway advertisementsin the Army’s Twitch stream chat boxes led users to a recruiting web form with no mention of any giveaway.

Recent events reveal that building our military forces does not strengthen our country’s security. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that the biggest threats to our nation cannot be stopped with military methods. It has also shown the risks that troops face from working and living close together, making them vulnerable to this deadly disease. In WW1, more troops died from disease than in combat.

The police killings of unarmed black people have also shown the ineffectiveness of force to ensure the safety of our communities. A young black woman on the news testified that she had considered joining the police force but changed her mind after seeing the systemic abuse of police departments, both in the killing of George Floyd and the way police brutalized peaceful protesters. Even more pointedly, the death of US Army SPC Vanessa Guillen, murdered by a fellow soldier at Ford Hood in Texas, after first being sexually harassed by an officer, indicates the unstated dangers that recruits can face.

How can those of us who are opposed to the current militarization of society in general and high schools in particular curtail the military’s push to meet recruitment "quotas?"

Step by step.

Because of the pandemic, TIR has had to adjust strategies and procedures; after winning the right, with help from the ACLU So Cal affiliate, in 2019 to table at high school events in Santa Maria – we are now faced with school closures. So instead, we have been conducting meetings, events and presentations remotely, utilizing services like Zoom. In fall of 2020, we met with the SMJUHSD and the new Superintendent in Santa Maria to establish a working relationship and so progress in our goals.

Throughout the pandemic, Truth in Recruitment has given online presentations to students and local community groups. The focus has been on the stakes of military careers and our campaign to regulate recruiters’ access to students. On social media, we have regularly posted about military recruiting tactics – in order to give students a more balanced view of what life in the military can mean and to recognize that they can choose nonmilitary career options. The presence of military recruiters on high schools does not serve an educational purpose. Our goal is to build student and family awareness so they can make educated choices about their future.

Kate Connell is the director of Truth in Recruitment and the parent of two students who attended Santa Barbara schools. She is a member of the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers. Along with parents, students, veterans, and other community members, she successfully led the effort to implement a policy regulating recruiters in the Santa Barbara Unified School District.

Fred Nadis is an author and editor based in Santa Barbara, who volunteers as a grant writer for Truth in Recruitment.

Truth in Recruitment (TIR) is a project of the Santa Barbara Friends (Quaker) Meeting, a 501(c)3 nonprofit. TIR’s goal is to educate students, families, and school districts about alternatives to military careers, inform families of their children’s privacy rights, and advocate for policies regulating recruiter presence on campuses.

FacebookTwitterWhatsAppRedditLinkedInTumblrEmailPrint

Share

Education, Not Militarization, a video from Project YANO

A video from Project YANO -- Youth and Non-military Opportunities -- featuring high school students in California facing aggressive recruiting in their schools and discussing their own plans for their futures. 

Reminder: AISD policy limiting student access by military recruiters in our schools

A reminder to all students, teachers, administrators and parents within the Austin Independent School District:  AISD has a policy of protecting student privacy by placing these restrictions on military recruiters who visit AISD campuses.  This is the policy as adopted by the AISD School Board.  Any violations should be reported to the school's Principal.

GKC (Local) Policy for Recruiters on Campus:

The following guidelines shall apply to recruiters on District campuses:

1. All recruiters shall first report to the campus main office to obtain a visitor’s badge each time they visit school property.

2. The principal shall designate specific areas on each campus for recruiting purposes. Recruiting may not occur at school athletic events or other school-sponsored events, unless specifically authorized by the principal.

3. Recruiters shall not continue ongoing contact when a student makes it clear by speech or other conduct that contact with the recruiter is unwelcome. In no event may recruiters meet with a student under the age of 18 years off campus without written consent submitted to a campus administrator by the student’s parent or guardian.

4. Evidence of a parent’s or guardian’s intent to provide directory information upon request shall be respected. [See FL]  (This refers to the form that parents and guardians fill out for their students that can opt them out of allowing their contact information to be given to military recruiters)

5. The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test shall be administered according to the same terms and conditions as other aptitude tests administered within the District. District schools shall select “Option 8” on the ASVAB test prior to the administration of the ASVAB at the school to ensure consistency with the opt-out provisions for release of contact information to the military.

6. Recruiting of any kind shall not be permitted at a time, place, and manner that disrupts classroom instruction. Recruiting in a classroom or other designated space shall be acceptable if it is at the invitation of authorized school personnel and part of a school-approved program.

7. Schools shall allow information regarding recruiting, including recruiting by the military and those advocating alternatives to the military, to be made available to students in an equivalent manner and location.

8. Recruiters shall not solicit student contact information directly from a student or require such information as a condition to participate in an activity or to receive an award or gift.

If a visitor fails to comply with the general rules or guidelines set out in this policy, the principal or other campus administrator may deny the visitor access to the campus in accordance with law. If a military recruiter fails to comply with the guidelines set out in this policy, the principal or other campus administrator may contact the military recruiter's supervisor to report the failure to comply and request that such individual not return to the campus.

Recruiters on AISD campuses must observe new limits

As we noted, last Monday, October 26, the AISD school board passed a new policy that will more tightly restrict access by military recruiters to students in our public schools in Austin.  The new policy is here.  A notice about this was included in a segment on KUT Austin public radio news today.

Our group first brought this proposal forward about a year ago after discovering that, of 3 reported cases, between 2008 and 2011, of local military recruiters charged in sexual assaults of area high school students,  only one of the cases had resulted in a conviction.  In the other two cases, which we researched through court documents, the recruiters had reportedly first met the students on AISD campuses, continued their contact through inappropriate texting, convinced the students to meet with them and then assaulted them off campus.  Reading the court records convinced us that serious crimes against underage students had been committed, but the investigations were dropped after numerous postponements, possibly because of reluctance by the victims to relive the trauma of the assaults.

Our group looked at other district policies around the country regarding recruiters in schools.  We had also noticed ways in our own district that recruiters were getting around the SR-290 opt-out box to obtain student contact information, either directly from the students, by telling them to write down their contact info on cards at their recruiting tables, or through administering the ASVAB test on campuses without parental input.  The new limits we proposed were all included in other cities' district policies and were chosen to directly address both the loopholes in the current recruiter policy and the very serious allegations of recruiter sexual abuse.

In our meetings with district staff, we stressed that sexual assault is a major problem within the military, and we believe that it stems from a military culture of sexism, tolerance of sexual violence and a history of retaliation against whistle-blowers.  The last several years have seen much more media attention to this entrenched problem, and we sincerely hope that the increased awareness, mostly achieved through the courage of survivors who have spoken out, will lead to change.  However, the failure of Congress to pass legislation that would have increased accountability by taking prosecution of crimes outside of the military chain of command makes us think that change will be slow in coming.  In the meantime, the serious problem of sexism and sexual assault in the military affects civilian institutions as well, including our public schools, as long as recruiting is allowed on campuses.

      

Great article by Seth and Scott, published in Education Week:

Published Online: October 27, 2015

Published in Print: October 28, 2015, as Do Military Recruiters Belong in Schools?

COMMENTARY

Do Military Recruiters Belong in Schools?

By Seth Kershner & Scott Harding

• 
  
• 
  

The United States stands alone among Western nations in allowing military recruiters to work inside its educational system.Section 9528 of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act requires that public high schools give the military as much access to campuses and student contact information as is given to any other recruiter. However, University of Kansas anthropologist Brian Lagotte finds that school officials do not fully understand this policy and often provide military recruiters unrestricted access to their campuses. Many schools allow military recruiters to coach sports, serve as substitute teachers, chaperone school dances, and engage in other activities. In some cases, recruiters are such a regular presence in high schools that students and staff regard them as school employees.

The military does not advertise what it is doing in public schools. But for the past four years, we have been researching those who make it their business to closely monitor the actions of military personnel in schools: parents, students, military veterans, and citizens affiliated with the grassroots "counter recruitment" movement. Many of them told us that state education commissioners, district superintendents, school principals, and other policymakers react with surprise at their efforts to rid schools of the undue influence of military personnel. In fact, most public officials are unaware of the extent of the military's presence in education settings and the ways in which the Pentagon can access private data about high school students. Until now, there has been a lack of hard data describing the extent of military involvement in schools.

Last year, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the U.S. Army provided us with documents about recruiter activities in Connecticut high schools during the 2011-12 academic year.

—Getty

The data offer only a snapshot of what recruiters for one service branch—the Army—were doing in one state. Certain trends emerge that should be of concern to educators and parents everywhere, however.

At a number of Connecticut high schools, Army recruiters are present—in one form or another—on a weekly basis. This kind of blanket coverage could only be possible with the Army's enormous recruiting budget: $338 million in fiscal year 2013. In contrast, most college recruiters do not have these kinds of resources to be in schools with the same regularity.

The data also suggest that schools with a high proportion of low-income students serve as a magnet for the military. Take the example of two similarly sized high schools in two Hartford suburbs: Avon and Bloomfield. Army recruiters visited Avon High, where only 5 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, four times during the 2011-12 school year. Yet at Bloomfield High, where nearly half the students qualify for such assistance, recruiters made more than 10 times as many visits. Other examples of school-based recruiting efforts challenge widely held beliefs about equality of opportunity. If we are serious about promoting higher education to all students, why do some youths see far more khaki and camouflage than college brochures?

There's another reason to be alarmed about the largely unregulated presence of military recruiters in education settings. Research shows that teenagers are at a stage in their development when they are impulsive, apt to engage in risky behavior, and uniquely susceptible to persuasion. Hence, a number of participants in our study framed their opposition to school military recruiting as a form of child advocacy. The leading association of public-health scholars has also endorsed this narrative.

In 2012, citing the latest neuroscience research and underlining how the health risks of military service disproportionately impact the youngest recruits, the American Public Health Association passed a resolution urging schools to more closely regulate military-recruiter access. While it is unlikely that he was familiar with the scholarly literature, several years ago a New Haven 5th grader summed up this view in an interview with Junior Scholastic magazine: "If people are not allowed to drink alcohol until the age of 21," he said, "they should not be able to make a decision that could cost them their lives until at least that age." The military holds a different view.

For the military, access to high schools is all-important because, in the words of its own officer corps, youths represent their "target market" and high schools "the primary source of Army applicants." School access is essential to military recruiters precisely because that's where young people can be found five days a week. In fact, the Army's recruiter handbook notes that among key community institutions—churches, civic organizations, businesses—schools have the most significant "impact on recruiting."

"Most public officials are unaware of the extent of the military’s presence in education settings."

Given the way military recruiters rely on unfettered access to public schools and students, it would be unreasonable to expect them to voluntarily scale back their activities. But educators, parents, and activists have an important role to play in pushing for reform. Our research, supported by other scholars and community organizations, indicates that common sense is needed to protect youths from military recruiters and restore a sense of balance to the career choices being promoted to students.

If recruiters are to remain in schools, we suggest public school districts across the United States adopt the following policies:

• Districts should require military recruiters to remain in one part of the school only. In too many instances, they are allowed to roam the hallways in search of students, or often sit with students eating alone in the cafeteria. We think most school officials would balk if a recruiter from another organization expected such access. Military recruiters should be held to that same standard.

• Districts should limit recruitment visits to one per branch of the military per year. As shown in Connecticut, weekly visits by recruiters to individual schools are common. Students in public settings should not be overexposed to information about just one potential career path.

• Restricting recruiter visits to schools is important, but to make this policy effective, "visits" should be broadly defined to include any activity by a military recruiter in which student contact is made. This would include not only traditional table set-ups, but also activities like classroom presentations by military personnel.

• Districts should require recruiters to fully disclose the health risks of military service. Among the more than 800 Texas high school students who told researchers Adam McGlynn and Jessica Lavariega-Monforti that they had had contact with military recruiters, 86 percent said they were never told about the possible risks of military service. At the least, recruiters should be required to tell students that if they join the military, they may end up in combat.

Efforts to regulate the presence of recruiters invariably produce strong opposition. The military and veterans' groups claim that such sensible reforms are "anti-military" and undermine the ability to recruit new service members. But advocates, parents, and teachers who wish to protect students should not be intimidated. This is not about being for, or against, the military. It is about ensuring that high schools do not become de facto recruiting stations, and that all young people have equal access to educational opportunities.• To ensure these rules are followed, a designated military monitor should be present at all times when recruiters interact with students. Such a policy has been successfully implemented in the Seattle public schools, where the Parent Teacher and Student Association, or PTSA, assigns a parent to monitor the military during school visits by recruiters.

Seth Kershner is a freelance writer and researcher. Scott Harding is an associate professor and associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Connecticut School of Social Work. Together, they have written extensively on the military's involvement in education. Their book Counter-Recruitment and the Campaign to Demilitarize Public Schools was published in September by Palgrave Macmillan.

Back in the groove: SOY tabling at Austin High School

Today was our first day back at SOY tabling for the new semester.  We had a great visit at Austin High School!  Students were very engaged and seemed eager to check out the table, answering the t-shirt challenge questions.  They offered very thoughtful responses to the questions that asked their own opinions, and we were impressed with their quick ability to research information, too.  Thanks, Maroons!

Most of the t-shirts we used today were hand-screened by Malachi over the summer, using this image, created by Juanita:

 
Several school teachers and staff stopped by the table, too, to offer encouragement.  Susana had tweeted on the school site that we would be there today, which was a great idea.
We happened to be tabling today right across from a table of army recruiters -- that was a first for us at that school.  We welcomed the opportunity for students to compare and contrast between the army materials and ours.  One important concern, though:  the recruiters were soliciting contact information from students who were younger than 18, which they really should not be doing if they don't know whether a student's parent or guardian has requested on the SR290 form that their child's contact information not be given out to recruiters.  This is a loophole we are seeking to close through the school administration.

   Here are some of the items on the army recruiters' table.  Do all recruits receive $54,000 in education benefits?  No.   It means 8 years of enlistment and meeting certain requirements along the way.  Also, most veterans wind up making use of only a fraction of their GI Bill benefits because of a variety of reasons:  family responsibilities, health concerns, lack of time because of work, etc.  Students who are thinking of enlisting because of the education benefits must do their research to find out if all the promises made by the military are kept -- and should ask themselves if what they are exchanging for those benefits -- 8 years or more of their lives -- is worth it.

Rethinking Schools: feature article on JROTC

An excellent article published in the current Fall 2014 issue of Rethinking Schools:

The Military Invasion of My High School

The role of JROTC

BY SYLVIA McGAULEY PURCHASE A PDF OF THIS ARTICLE

Air Force JROTC students from Buena Park High School, Coronado, California, 2006.

U.S. Navy photo by Hermes Crespo

“Will you please write me a letter of recommendation for the Navy, Ms. McGauley? You’re my best class.” Thanh was enrolled in the recently established Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) at our high school and he, like many of my students, was enamored with the military’s alluring promises of a magic carpet ride away from poverty and uncertainty.

My heart ripped as I listened to Thanh’s plea. I want to do what is best for my kids. I want to support and honor them in making their own informed decisions. But, given the impact of JROTC at our school, I felt very uneasy about the balance of information students like Thanh were receiving about enlistment in the U.S. military. After much discussion with Thanh, I wrote an honest letter, emphasizing his sensitive poetic nature and his commitment to fairness. The Navy eagerly welcomed him.

The sprawling campus of Reynolds High School (RHS), the second largest high school in Oregon, rests atop a ridge at the entrance to the scenic Columbia River Gorge in tiny Troutdale, 17 miles east of downtown Portland. When I first started teaching here 23 years ago, Reynolds was an almost all white, working-class, conservative, sub-rural community, culturally distinct from its larger urban neighbor. As Portland has become more gentrified, lower rents have attracted numerous low-income families—immigrant, African American, Latina/o, and white. Today, the Reynolds School District is a high-poverty, culturally diverse district with two of the poorest elementary schools in the state—perfect prey for military recruiters who win points for filling the coffers of the poverty draft.

During the Vietnam War era, much was written about JROTC’s role in teaching military training; today JROTC high school (and even middle school) programs incorporate a broader curricular agenda and are expanding rapidly. Yet, within the education community, little has been written about the implications and effects of JROTC in schools.

The potent presence of the military at RHS shines a floodlight on educational inequity. One sees college recruiters walking the halls of affluent Lincoln High School near downtown Portland. At RHS, college recruiters are few and far between, but military recruiters, JROTC commanders, and ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery) testers clamor to establish daily contact with potential recruits.

All too often I hear the refrain: “Well, the military is a good option—or perhaps the only option—for many kids.” As educators, we must ask critical questions: Whose interests do we ultimately serve by welcoming the military into our poorer schools? Is it really in any of our students’ best interests? What are the qualifications of the instructors? What does the JROTC curriculum actually teach our students?

JROTC 101

The National Defense Act of 1916 established JROTC to increase the U.S. Army’s readiness in the face of World War I. The ROTC Vitalization Act of 1964 directed the secretaries of each military branch to establish and maintain JROTC units for their respective branches. In the 1990s, the programs began expanding rapidly throughout the country. Today, there are approximately 3,500 Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard JROTC units in schools in the United States and its territories. Last year, Congress instructed the secretary of defense to expand further and to report on “efforts to increase distribution of units in educationally and economically deprived areas.”

JROTC is not about education. But by housing recruiters and JROTC in public schools and offering them carte blanche privileges, we provide them a cloak of legitimacy. Militarism was one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “giant triplets” of societal destruction (along with racism and extreme materialism), yet today it appears as a legitimate component of the educational system—most often at underfunded schools.

At our school, JROTC is an actual school within a school, one that offers four levels of classes for which students earn full credits. It meets state requirements for career training. At RHS and many other schools, it is accepted as a substitute for physical education. Our JROTC instructors have also given make-up credit for writing and study skills classes, using online programs in the main JROTC classroom. The RHS program is directed by Brian James, a retired colonel from the Oregon Army National Guard, who tells me he looks forward to being able to offer health, history, and government credits as well.

Promoting Gun Culture at School

RHS has embraced school-based initiatives, including a commitment to restorative justice and peer mediation, that teach and encourage students to resolve conflicts nonviolently. JROTC’s militarism runs counter to these programs. Schools across the country are employing a variety of methods to curb bullying and violent incidents, create safe learning environments, and teach peaceful means of conflict resolution. JROTC’s introduction of weapons training, its partnership with the NRA to sponsor marksmanship matches, and its modeling of authoritarian militaristic solutions to problems contradict the schools’ stated opposition to violence.

Critics have been successful in getting JROTC to discontinue the use of live weapons in schools on a national level, but units continue to use air rifles for target practice at RHS and numerous other schools. Organizing makes a difference. In San Diego, for example, the Education Not Arms Coalition, made up of students, teachers, parents, and community groups, successfully removed target practice with air rifles from San Diego JROTC programs in 2009.

One School’s JROTC Story

In 2011, a former RHS principal, with the support of the school board and many staff members, laid down the red carpet for JROTC to create a program at our school. The JROTC contract requires the hiring of a minimum of two retired officers for the first 150 students enrolled as cadets. After 150, another instructor must be hired for each additional increment of 100 cadets. James and other retired military personnel teach courses in military science, called Leadership Education Training (LET), during the school day.

Three full-time JROTC instructors lead 13 sections of LET 1, 2, and 3 to 280 students. Last year, a new principal tried to make the JROTC class loads comparable to other teachers’ loads by laying off one of the commanders. Although the effort failed, James says he does not plan to ask for additional staffing at this time: “Even though I won that fight and she’s gone, it’s political. I’m a laid-back kind of guy, but if you push me into a corner, I’ll fight back and I’ll win. . . . I brought in the superintendent and the school board, the mayor of Troutdale, and the commander at Fort Lewis. We’re all still here, and she’s gone.”

James adds that they really should have a fourth officer since their “job is bigger than a teacher’s. We teach, mentor, and coach kids, and we take them on excursions. We take them to Florida and other places for rifle competitions.” Every teacher I know teaches, mentors, and coaches students; and if we had the Pentagon’s money, we would take them on many more excursions.

At RHS today, student loads for most non-JROTC teachers hover between 180 and 220 students (more than twice the load of the JROTC instructors) with class sizes in the 30s and low 40s. JROTC cadets often take LET in place of physical education, and a single PE teacher would normally support 250 or more students. If JROTC were eliminated at RHS, the district would hire fewer than half as many teachers to replace them—although it would be wonderful for our students if we, too, had student loads of 70 to 90. In general, the federal subsidy covers less than half the total salaries and none of the employment taxes or benefits for JROTC instructors. Schools wind up using extra money from their budgets to, in effect, subsidize a high school military training/recruiting program for the Pentagon.

JROTC instructors are not certified in the same way as other school district teachers. In some states they are not required to have more than a GED (although the commander must have at least a BA). Generally, the military decides who is qualified to be a JROTC instructor and then presents them to the school district for hiring. According to James, each of the three JROTC instructors at RHS has at least a BA. He says getting certified to teach in the program is “a double whammy because we have to be certified by both the state of Oregon and the Army.” (There is no required teacher training; Oregon simply requires JROTC instructors to take a test on the history of discrimination in Oregon.)

Teaching Militarism, Not Critical Thinking

The Reynolds LET 1 course description apprises students that they will learn “leadership, follower, and citizenship skills.” JROTC is military training. Instead of teaching toward a just and peaceful world, military training emphasizes dominance and nationalism. In fact, once students enlist in the military, they are no longer guided by the United States Constitution. Rather they are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Pentagon contracts with Pearson to write JROTC curriculum, including social studies, health, and leadership textbooks. The local school district has no control over their content. No process exists for regular certified staff to review JROTC materials for appropriateness, accuracy, or conformity to educational standards.

Teachers focused on social justice are critical of the historical perspectives of many mainstream textbooks. But, because the JROTC curriculum is focused on developing leaders for the U.S. military, there is a specific danger to these texts. For example, Lesson 2 of the LET 3 textbook is titled “Ethical Choices, Decisions, and Consequences.” The authors compare and contrast the Vietnam and Iraq Wars. They state that the sole cause of the Vietnam War was containment of communism: “American military personnel began deploying to Vietnam in 1954 to strengthen the country against communist North Vietnam.” The authors cite then-President Johnson’s 1964 statements that North Vietnam attacked a U.S. destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin as the impetus for the broader war, ignoring overwhelming evidence from declassified documents that there was no such attack.

The narrative continues: “The United States went to war in Iraq as part of its global war on terrorism.” In the same paragraph, the authors introduce Osama bin Laden and explain the creation of al-Qaeda “to dislodge American forces in the Middle East.” The implication is clear—Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were working in cahoots to attack the United States. To further cement this alleged relationship, which did not exist, they quote George W. Bush: “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.” Nowhere in the case study or various historical timelines do the authors indicate that both Hussein and bin Laden were at one time strongly supported by the United States. Describing the arguments for the second Gulf War, the text notes a “lack of indisputable evidence” (as opposed to the presence of manufactured false evidence) that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In outlining alternatives to these military invasions, the authors identify the only potential consequences as unacceptably negative. In the case of Vietnam, they cite the “domino theory,” which predicted one country after another becoming communist threats to the United States. In the case of Iraq, they quote then-President Bush without additional commentary: “We cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Lesson 3 is on “Global Citizenship Choices, Decisions, and Consequences.” The authors discuss intelligence as a tool of U.S. foreign policy: “The CIA focuses mostly on countries it thinks might be unfriendly. . . . Sometimes intelligence agencies have helped overturn the government of a country. . . . For example, the CIA took part in overthrowing the government of Salvador Allende. The United States government thought Allende was not favorable to our national interest. Like defense, diplomacy, foreign aid, and trade measures, intelligence is an important tool of foreign policy.” There is no questioning of the U.S.-led coup against the democratically elected president of Chile, nor is there any discussion of the consequences and implications of the decision.

“The greatest purveyor of violence...”

The sole mission of the U.S. military is to prepare for and fight wars. JROTC in middle and high schools, ROTC in colleges, the ASVAB test, military partnerships with schools, research and development programs—all are designed as tools for fulfilling this goal. Military recruiters and JROTC personnel are notorious for not disclosing the whole truth and for making seductive promises—verbally and in writing—that can be broken at any time. For example, students and staff are often told that undocumented students will receive legal citizenship papers if they enlist. This is false. By law, undocumented immigrants may not enlist in the U.S. armed forces, or even enroll in JROTC. (Documented immigrants may enlist and can receive citizenship status for doing so if they fulfill all requirements. Last spring Pentagon officials approved a policy that would allow a limited number of undocumented young people “with critical language or medical skills” and who came to the United States as children to enlist in the military, opening a pathway to eventual citizenship.)

JROTC is a component of the U.S. military apparatus, what King called the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”—and nothing about the current world situation would encourage him to modify that statement. As educators, we need to teach students to read the world, to question, and to critically analyze the history of U.S. militarism. And we must get JROTC out of our schools.  

In June, after this article had been accepted for publication, an avid (and apparently mentally unstable) JROTC student at RHS armed himself with a semi-automatic rifle and pistol, a knife, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. He fatally shot one student and injured a teacher before police cornered him and he took his own life. This tragedy highlights the importance of closing down programs that feed violent tendencies in vulnerable students and contradict school-based efforts to teach nonviolent conflict resolution.

Recruiter Abuse: if you see something, say something

Sexual abuse has been a serious problem not only within every branch of the US military, but also by some military recruiters who recruit in high schools.  Students, teachers and school administrators: please note that, by military regulation, male recruiters are never supposed to be alone with female potential recruits. Students:  If a recruiter is making any kind of sexual advances or suggestions, whether in person or via text or phone messages, please tell a trusted adult and call the police.

In Austin, sexual assault of underage females by military recruiters has occurred in recent years.  These are serious crimes that hurt both victims and perpetrators.  Please help prevent future crimes by saying something if you see something.

Here is a message from the GI Rights Hotline:

 What is recruiter abuse?

Recruiter abuse has become such a problem that a congressional committee has suggested installing surveillance equipment in recruiting stations (which does little to protect young people solicited in schools).

Examples of recruiter abuse include:

·  Making misleading or false statements;
·  Repeated contact after a request to refrain from contact;
·  Physical coercion;
·  Sexual solicitation;
·  Encouraging recruits to lie or falsify information;
·  Offering drugs or alcohol;
·  Attempting to intimidate or scare recruits or their parents;
·  And refusal to accurately document recruits' medical or legal situations.

What can be done about recruiter abuse?

If you feel that you are being misled or pressured by a recruiter, call the GI Rights Hotline at 877-447-4487.  If your recruiter is abusing you physically or sexually, or breaking the law in any way, call the police.

Spring SOY table at Reagan HS

Tami and I were glad to have a literature table today during lunch at Reagan HS.  Students stopped by the table to spin the peace wheel, take literature, talk about their plans and do some stencil art.  Several staff people also stopped by to talk, and a life skills teacher did some stenciling to add to their area bulletin board.  We brought our military reality fliers and Americorps materials to the Project Advance room and spoke with some of the career counseling staff. We learned that, beginning this year, Reagan students who qualify can take ACC courses right on the Reagan campus, beginning as early as their first year in high school. Thus, the new designation (along with LBJ HS) as an Early College High School. Also, some Pearce Middle School students are now attending the 8th Grade College Prep Academy on the Reagan campus.

college flags flew in one the courtyards



We learned that this is Social Justice Week at Reagan, with different issues addressed each day.  Today, it was suicide prevention and bullying.  Students told us that the day's announcements included info about these issues.




As we walked into the front office, there was a running list of scholarship opportunities on the school's video screens.  This particular scholarship was listed on a poster outside the career counseling offices.




This flier was also posted outside the career counseling room.  Our materials challenge several of these claims.  For example, very few enlistees will retire in 20 years, and most soldiers will not qualify for or use the highest GI Bill figures, according to government statistics.  The flier does not mention that veterans are more likely to be unemployed than civilians, and that approximately one in three homeless adults is a veteran.  Nor does it mention the high rates of Post Traumatic Stress, Traumatic Brain Injuries or Military Sexual Trauma that soldiers suffer. causing serious difficulties in family life and job retention. 



A good online resource for info about college financial aid



Student stencils





Life Skillls teacher and community garden organizer



We were happy to see this poster, featuring Public Offenders, and Gidon, who is a past student president at Reagan and who is included on our Peace Wheel.

Stencil art