military recruiting in high school

[welsh]

What do you guys think of this?

I remember when I was in High School, the military was already marketing to kids who were 15 and 16 years old. At 17 you had to have your parents sign the paper work for you. Only then could the army ship you out to some tropical or desert clime to meet new and interesting people and kill them.

I have no problem with the military recruiting, but to begin the business when the teen is barely past childhood seems a bit much.

Should the army be allowed to recruit in high schools?

Rift over recruiting at public high schools By Dean Paton, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Wed May 18, 4:00 AM ET

SEATTLE - While most Parent Teacher Student Association meetings might center on finding funding for better math books or the best way to chaperon a school dance, a recent meeting here at Garfield High School grappled with something much larger - the war in Iraq.

The school is perhaps one of the first in the nation to debate and vote against military recruiting on high school campuses - a topic already simmering at the college level. In fact, the Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether the federal government can withhold funds from colleges that bar military recruiters.

In your college, does the military have the right to recruit?

High schools are struggling with a similar issue as the No Child Left Behind Act requires that schools receiving federal funding must release the names of its students to recruiters. Some feel that's an invasion of privacy prompted by a war effort that has largely divided the American public. Others say barring recruiters is an infringement of free speech - and a snub to the military, particularly in a time of war.

No offense but even if the military should have the right to recruit kids in high schools I don't see why the No Child Left Behind Act should force schools to give recruiters the names of students. Students are already supposed to register for selective service before they reach 18.

But is barring recruiters an infringement on free-speech?

Garfield High School took a decisive step last week with a vote of 25 to 5 to adopt a resolution that says "public schools are not a place for military recruiters."

All this comes as recruiters struggle to meet enlistment goals.

Although PTA chapters are supposed to be "nonsectarian and nonpartisan, which means nonpolitical," according to Jenny Sopko, a spokeswoman for the national PTA in Chicago, Garfield's PTSA cochair maintains that its action is "wholly consistent with our mission."

"The mission of the PTA is to protect and defend kids," says Amy Hagopian, a mother of three whose son is a Garfield senior. "It's not just limited to education issues - which explains why the PTA takes positions on kids' health, violence, and other serious issues."

Ok, but are they helping or hurting kids with this?

The military could recruit off school- but by recruiting at schools it can advertise where the kids are. At the same time other employers recruit on high school grounds.

Garfield, with 1,600 students, is one of Seattle's top high schools, routinely producing bumper crops of National Merit Scholars, plus internationally acclaimed student orchestras and jazz bands. It's also racially diverse, with African-American students making up 31 percent of its student population.

Like so many schools today, Garfield grapples with painful budget cuts, loss of teachers, and dwindling resources. The school's opposition to military recruitment seems, in part, a result of parents' growing realization that tax money spent for the Iraq war is money not spent on children's educations or other domestic needs.

So isn't this another form of protest. Rather than spend tax money on defense and military operations abroad, perhaps that money should be spent at home on education and development?

Ok, so it's Seattle and liberal- but don't the parents have a right to protest as well?

"They're spending $4 billion a month in Iraq, but we have to cut our race relations class, which costs $12,500," Ms. Hagopian pointed out. "That's an important class for our kids."

During discussion at the PTSA's meeting last week, Ted Inkley argued against the resolution because he thought it dangerous to deny free speech to organizations simply because their philosophies or intentions disagreed with the PTSA.

Mr. Inkley, an attorney whose daughter is a senior, told the crowded library he could "easily" see a resolution by some other PTA that banned Planned Parenthood representatives from campus because of their views on contraception and abortion.

And that's another thing- if liberals were to ban organizations they think are incorrect, what is to stop conservatives from banning organizations they think are incorrect?

Steve Ludwig, whose son is a senior and whose daughter will enter as a freshman next fall, made a point shared by many in attendance: Garfield does not allow organizations that promote illegal activities to recruit students to perform those activities, nor does it allow organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation to recruit on campus.

"Planned Parenthood, as far as I know, does not advocate or perform illegal acts. The US military does," Mr. Ludwig continued. The soft-spoken carpenter said he would not object if Army representatives came to Garfield to debate their ideas on torture or aggressive war. "What I object to is their coming here to recruit students to perform those acts," he said. "It's not about free speech."

Is that a fair argument? This at a time when the individuals charged with torture in Iraq are being tried before a military court we still have allegations that the orders for torture come from above- authorities that are not being held accountable.

Nationally, there's a growing sense that recruiters desperate to bolster falling enlistment numbers are misrepresenting sign-up agreements to entice recruits. In response to 480 allegations of improprieties by recruiters since Oct. 1, the Army announced it will suspend its recruiting for one day on May 20, so commanders can remind its 7,500 recruiters of proper conduct.

Douglas Smith, a US Army spokesman, said the job of recruiters is not to make promises but to show applicants possibilities and career options.

"As for a recruiter making promises and not following through, the recruiter's not in any position to promise anything. We hope that all our recruiters are communicating honestly with our applicants," Mr. Smith said. But he added, "In the contract [between the new soldier and the Army] it says, 'Anything the recruiter may have promised me is moot.' "

That's something I was warned about when I was in high school- that the military promises may not be kept.

Smith also pointed out the legality of military recruitment activity on campuses. "The No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to let us have access to these students," he says.

No Child Left Behind By The Military?

Indeed, the resolution by Garfield's PTSA is more symbol than policy, for Seattle, like virtually all school districts, requires high schools to give recruiters access to students - or risk losing federal funding under Section 9528 of the act. School districts also are required to notify parents and students that they may "opt out" by signing a letter preventing recruiters from getting their names.

But if the schools are not receiving their funding from the federal government or can make up the difference locally, what then?

In response to Garfield's resolution, Seattle's district issued a statement reinforcing its policy of allowing recruiters to work on high school campuses, but also said it would increase efforts next fall to make it easier for parents and students to opt out.

"Nothing in this resolution prevents students desirous of joining the military from doing so," said Sasha Riser-Kositsky, a Garfield sophomore from a written statement during last week's meeting. "Indeed, there is a recruiting center within a five-minute walking distance of Garfield."
[/quote

Ok, curious to hear your thoughts on this. Europeans often have to do a two year stint in the military- what do you think of this?

 

[calculon000]

Maybe they should go door to door as well, Jehovah style.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

About the European Army "stint"; one is waiting for me when I turn 26, but it's not really an issue and I'm almost looking forward to it, mostly because the service is a joke, e.g. my exes brother gained almost 15 kg while in the army, another buddy of mine spent more time out of the barracks getting drunk than training, etc. But recruitment during a war is some fucked up business, especially in schools, especially around poor schools. I think this is the way Bush is dealing with the problem of the poor: he drives them to death of starvation and gets their progeny killed in a war.

There really should be an anti-campaign explaining kids there are better things to do with your life than get killed in a useless war.

 

[welsh]

To be honest, I have always thought the idea of national service for two years was a good idea. A chance for kids to do something outside of school and mature a bit. If they want to go professional- perhaps that opportunity is available.

Doubt that would work in the US. And considering age groups, the military here has to recruit kids at 18, thought I think 17 is a bit young.

 

[c0ldst33ltrs4u]

recruiting in school is kind of unfair, I mean their clients could be some confused teenagers who could at one moment see in the army a solution to all their problems, strength, pride, discipline and all that but what if it turns out it's just a whim?
anyway that whole uncle Sam needs you! (to die for some rich bastards who just want to get rich in some God forsaken place and all that in the name of democracy) sound like some major pile of brahmin shite.
piece of mind: democracy at gunpoint...

 

[Tempistfury]

recruiting in school is kind of unfair

At 16 you are intelligent enough to look at bothsides of an issue and make an informed decision. If you buy into a patriotic show and ask no questions than you deserve the fate you get.

Simply put, I think 16 should be the point for everything in the USA. Drinking Age, Driving Age, Draft Age, Voting Age, Stock Owning age and yes, buying Porn Age.

 

[Roshambo]

Tempistfury: So when was the last time you have met a 16 year-old with their head straight on their shoulders? As a majority sample? Seriously, that high-school drama mentality would only lead to more physical conflicts and problems in boot camp training.

Those recruited from a high school are often those who really have no other potetnial career aspect after high school. The kids find that almost everything else but the service industry won't take them, and therefore they go in with the false understandings that the government/military will even honor the contract they sign to enlist, much less the bullshit lies the recruiters feed them. Having heard some of the garbage they tell some of the kids lately, it really isn't good. They are starting to go back to the Nam garbage of "free medical and dental for you and your family for the rest of your life" garbage, which even the Supreme Court says the govt. doesn't have to honor, because it wasn't made in a legal way. Yet, the enlistment is held.

It is the ultimate scam, of the life of someone who is basically a naive kid, and when they finally realize that they were lied to and the promises made to them during and prior to enlistment were nothing but a scam, there really isn't anything they can do about it. EVER. Well, unless you count appealing to the Supreme Court, and ask any Nam vet near you about their health benefits. Expect an earful.

So, should the schools block out those who would use fraudulent contracts that the advertising party will not honor their obligation in, for putting [the youth's] life at risk for an illegal contract, and the fact that the military wipes its ass on the Bill of Rights for the Feds again?

The schools block the corporate twits who try to get students to sign bullshit contracts, so why should the govt/military be treated any different?

 

[Bradylama]

Because they're funded by the government. Uh-oh, spaghettios.

There really should be an anti-campaign explaining kids there are better things to do with your life than get killed in a useless war.

Thinking about the kids I went to school with, I can't think of a whole lot better they could've done with their lives.

Other than being an auto mechanic, of course.

 

[Murdoch]

The past couple movies I've seen have an army (or perhaps navy? anyways..) recruitment ad. All the 'soldiers' are these newly minted 18 year olds, many of whom look they they've never had to shave. Its a sad state of military affairs when they have to recuit in theaters to begin with, but showcasing kids straight out of high school nad into boots and tanks points out pretty poignantly who is actually doing the dying for oil and Islamic democracy.

But I do agree in principle with a national service period of a year or two. I think it would be nice to do the 'serving allows you to vote thing' that R. Heinlein advocated. I would've joined in that case, and been glad the fewer of my idiot peers did. Perhaps if that was in place in 2000 we wouldn't be in so many god-awful messes around the world.

 

[Bradylama]

Mandatory conscription in a nation this size is a terrible idea. The amount of cash it'd take to keep millions of 18 year olds in the field would be astronomical.

Of course, that money has to come from taxes, which is the reason we can vote in the first place. In fact, the reason that white landowners were the only people that could vote in the golden years was because they were the only ones paying taxes.

But no, only servicemen should be able to vote. We should just leave the fate of the nation up to former jarheads. The guys that said they'd be willing to go and get shot in the first place. Sure, that'll solve our war problems.

I also think that conscription should be unconstitutional, but I think that'd be more of a red herring. =/

If we've honestly reached the point where we need the military to teach kids valuable life experiences we're probably fucked anyways.

 

[Roshambo]

Because they're funded by the government. Uh-oh, spaghettios.

Federal != State. Do not forget this about your own government, Capitalist Swine! [Dammit, I need to find a Nazi grinning smiley for this occasion]

Many schools do need to revolve around Federal inputs of money to continue to run their schools, but most are managed by the city or state through local taxes. Therefore the Feds will threaten the welfare of the school and student education, in exchange for the Feds' own petty interests or when some other branch of the government has someone with a tree branch up their ass.

Hence, the erosion of the 10th by intimidation. Denying the military to advertise in the school environment is wholly unrelated to Federal grants revolving around GPA awards and associated funding that is indicative of the teacher's and student's efforts.

They are using selfish, bullshit politics that does nobody good, especially not those that this whole issue is about. So the govt can't push on the military in schools, so therefore the students don't deserve to learn as well as those who have to deal with the moronic dogma the Army is spouting lately, at school, where they are supposed to learn?

Let the join JROTC if they want to be interested in a military career, just like any of the other electives. Kids should NOT be recruited in the school halls when they are still that clueless. When shall we get into a discussion about the school trying to shunt off those they deem "failures" off to the military, for "recruitment bonuses" to the schools pocket?

"Hey, there goes a few more, and we didn't have to teach them shit, bonuses for all!"

 

[Bradylama]

Federal != State.

The way things are going that's not going to matter.

Right about the BS politics, my bad.

 

[Montez]

Is it just me, or do republicans in power do nothing except attempt to bend representative democracy into a feudalism/oligarchy hybrid?

 

[Bradylama]

I think Machine Politics is the more accurate term.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

We have obligatory army service, so they really have no need to recruit us at school, as you end up in the service anyway. Well, actually I've seen a few Airforce posters promoting the pilot career, but that was back in era when the Airforce had more than three functional airplanes.

In Croatia, the Army joins you.

 

[Roshambo]

You want to know how bad it truly is?

Look at how many US lawmakers have their kids going to a public school. Then take a look at how many have their heirs going into military service.

Then see the why the lawmakers really don't give a fuck if they cut the money that went to the education for the lower "castes", based on the merit of the lower castes don't want the public schools to be used as a picking ground for the military, and then the politicians bend the military any which way they please. They don't really have to care, as it isn't affecting them or their children at all, immediately. Then they kiss corporate ass, since that is where you can turn a career in politics into a retirement fund.

Indeed, feudalist/oligarchy politics at the core.

 

[Mandelbrot]

Heck.. The military recruits everywhere.. it's in the games..I think the army even made a game. "Look how fun it is to kill people.........JOIN THE SERVICE!" I think killing is wrong no matter what..... Yes even if the guy is a sick puppy weirdo mass murdering fuck head....sticking him in a cell until he croaks seems like good punishment to me.. Killing him is just him getting off easy. There's no torture or punishment after death. You have to keep someone alive to punish them. Death is the easy part... Living is much harder.

So no matter what we do or say there will be wars and deaths and killings until this part of our evolution is wiped out and another begins. Hell our brains are still exactly the same as the first homosapians that walked the earth 30,000 years ago........we just know more shit.

 

[Question]

Try living in singapore.

Mandotary 2 year military service.And its not the joke the malaysian one is either........that was officially admitted to be more about promotting racial harmony or such(which is hypocrite BS,the laws favour malays.If you are malay you can get x grant or more money on your loan or such),rather than actually teaching people how to fight a war.

Singapore one isnt really hardcore either,but it is definately serious military training.You run like shit,you climb like shit,you go on fascinating tours to thailaind just to climb the fucking mountains and pass out at 2 am only to wake up to find your rifle dismantled by your superior officer while you were sleeping.......which leads to the whole "i could have slit your throat if i was the enemy!" thing and punishment.

I might be exaggerating a bit.That last part is more like national guard/commando stuff.

And the most terribly funny thing of all?

The military is a waste of money and time.

No seriously.Its good to have national service if singapore was in the middle east but not at its curent position.

Lets see now shall we :

Right,firstly we need a reason to attack singapore.There is no reason.It does not have oil or valuable resoruces(unless you count a few chicken farms).

It can be argued a reason to attack would be to neutralize a threat.The problem is singapore is not a threat to anyone.Well maybe the odd tropical island with primitive villagers.There is no mad dictator in power trying to fund seperatist movements in malaysia or nearby countries or harbour terrorists and NBCs.

So the reason to attack is gone.Okay lets assume the malaysian or indonesian government was overthrown and the joker who did that ups and decides that,instead of worrying about the remaining loyal military troops(and the ex-leadership if they escaped) and a UN or other such force comes in to kick them out,they decide instead to move all their forces to attack singapore just for the HELL of it.

In this highly unlikely scenario,and assuming the remaining troops(assuming a military coup of a large portion of the military) are at low morale(they are attacking a country they dont give shit about for no reason at all),low strength(they did take casaulties) ,etc,such that the meager singapore military would not get overwhelmed in a few hours(last reports place neighbours having better trained and higher tech equipment,by a vast margin),yes i do suppose they could hold out long enough for australia or whoever to arrive.

Otherwise,its to show off on the national day parades.

Seriously all we need is a small specialized military force made up of highly trained volunteers for events such as terrorist attacks,disasters or sending them off to whichever place got hit by a earthquake or typhoon.

It should also be noted that reservist soldiers barely remember anything about how to handle a gun past the age of 30 and would be little value in the current war where small armies of highly trained troops with specialized equipment fight.(Maybe in the middle east its more applicable......)

The canon fodder armies of millions strong in the world wars are GONE.Okay.

Now where was i?Oh yes military recruitment.In high school.

I say......keep it factual.Raise the recruitment age to say 18 or 19.16-17 is not mature enough for most teenagers.I dont care what scientist say but when i see 15-17 year olds doing whacked out shit in class like repeatedly stroking their penis through their shorts/pants or a group of girls cornering a guy to try and look down his pants,i get scared.

Recruiters should only give authorized information.That is to say,REAL information.Like how much pay you will be getting.In reality.Your actual promotion prospects.Stuff like that.A few "from a soldier" stories would also fit in,assuming they arent horribly exaggerated(stuff like "bob fucked up and never got promoted,so kids,dont fuck up).

Then i wouldnt mind.

But like others said lots of kids can only go into the military or low class jobs(such as mcdonalds guy),since they fucked up their grades(through sex,dating,whatever).

Its highly questionable whetehr it would make any difference

 

[[PCE]el_Prez]

A lot of kids are screwups so it's better for them to join the army right out of high school. It provides them something to do with their lives and at the same time, keeps them out of trouble untill their old enough to know what their doing.

 

[Bradylama]

36?

There's no torture or punishment after death. You have to keep someone alive to punish them. Death is the easy part... Living is much harder.

So you don't support the death penalty because you would rather be more vindictive? To each his own, I guess.

No seriously.Its good to have national service if singapore was in the middle east but not at its curent position.

I'm tired of this Peaceful Days bullshit. The Care Bears lived in Clouds, but they still weren't afraid to throw down.

Because Singapore isn't currently in the hotbed of political crisis doesn't mean that it would be in the future. Singapore is in one of the most heavily trafficked trade routes in the world. What if the Chinese up and decided that the Indo in Indo-China was too confusing?

People think peace lasts forever, but so long as you have something that somebody else wants, they'll always be willing to fight you for it. That's the way things will always be, and there's no point in not being prepared to throw down for your snowglobe collection.