Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hawk220 on December 03, 2002, 02:59:20 PM
-
Uncle Sam wants your kid
Tuesday, December 3, 2002 Posted: 10:30 AM EST (1530 GMT)
The new law says that schools must give the military the same access to their campuses that businesses and college recruiters enjoy.
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A little-noticed provision in a new federal education law is requiring high schools to hand over to military recruiters some key information about its juniors and seniors: name, address and phone number.
The Pentagon says the information will help it recruit young people to defend their country. But the new law disturbs parents and administrators in some liberal communities that aren't exactly gung-ho about the armed forces.
Some say the law violates students' privacy and creates a moral dilemma over the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays.
"I find it appalling that the school is sending out letters to do the job of the military," said Amy Lang, the parent of a student at Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, where Coke was once banned in a protest against the soda giant's investments in apartheid South Africa. "It's clearly an invasion of my daughter's privacy."
The No Child Left Behind law, signed last January, pumps billions into education but also gives military recruiters access to the names, addresses and phone numbers of students in 22,000 schools. The law also says that schools must give the military the same access to their campuses that businesses and college recruiters enjoy.
School systems that fail to comply could lose federal money. The measure also applies to private schools receiving federal funding. But Quaker schools and others that have a religious objection to military service can get out of the requirement.
Students and parents who oppose the law can keep their information from being turned over to the military, but they must sign and return an "opt-out" form.
Opting out
The Boston school system, which has 7,500 juniors and seniors, included the opt-out notice in a take-home student handbook, but fewer than a dozen parents opted out.
So far, 95 percent of the nation's schools are in compliance, said Pentagon spokeswoman Maj. Sandra Troeber. She would not identify the other schools. But Education Department spokesman Dan Langan said that the current focus is on cooperation and that no schools have been sanctioned.
Federal law already requires men to register with the Selective Service within 30 days of turning 18. The new law, however, enables the Pentagon to reach potential recruits when they are 15 or 16.
In New York City, Daniel Alterman was taken aback when his 15-year-old son, a junior at Stuyvesant High, received a recruitment letter.
"Parents are in the dark," Alterman said. "It freaked me out. I didn't sign up to support the military effort."
Alterman said after he opted out, his son received another letter, this one promoting scholarships. "It was very seductive. They didn't say anything about risk to personal safety," Alterman said.
Among those objecting to the new requirements is the New York City chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Executive director Donna Lieberman said that the opt-out provision is inadequate and that schools should be doing more to protect students' privacy.
In a letter last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Education Secretary Rod Paige reminded high school administrators of their duty, and cited "the excellent educational opportunities the military affords, as well as an environment that encourages the development of strong character and leadership skills."
'We had to comply with the law'
The Pentagon said better access to students could also hold down the rising costs of recruitment. Over the past decade, the cost per recruit has nearly doubled from $6,500 to $11,600.
Before the law, military recruiters could meet with students in Cambridge and Northampton on campus only if the student sought them out, and then only at a meeting attended by a guidance counselor. But Cambridge held a military career fair at the high school a month ago.
"It's a vast departure from the way we've done business," said Donna Harlan, an associate superintendent in the Northampton school system. "We are not in the business of giving lists of names of kids to anybody. That was tough. The issue was if we were to receive federal or state money, we had to comply with the law."
The law also spelled the end of a 6-year ban on military recruiting on campus in Portland, Oregon. After contending that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy discriminates against gays, the school system now gives recruiters a shot at its 16,000 students.
In Massachusetts, Framingham High senior April Middleton decided over lunch recently that maybe the military is in her future after talking with Army National Guard Sgt. Louis Perrin, a recruiter who visited the cafeteria.
Middleton, 18, said she plans to enlist after she graduates, and the prospect of war has not scared her off. "Sometimes you've got to make sacrifices," she said.
Sometimes, however, recruiters battle hostility.
"One teacher said we were trying to brainwash kids. All we were doing was handing out pencils," Perrin said. "We're not trying to invade anybody's privacy. We're just trying to protect their freedoms."
-
You think this is a bad thing?
-
I was just gonna post something similar.
personally I think it's about time !
-
Its OK by me too.
ROTC is still pretty big in our local schools. Probably because this is a town that was once dominated by a large Air Force base.
-
I believe 100 percent that recruiters should be given equal opportunity to represent the military as other business recruiters can theirs. In fact, I think the military should be given higher preference. Were it not for the sacrifices of the men and women in our armed forces, those other companies attempting to recruit our children wouldn't be around to do any recruiting.
As far as that New York guy in the article saying that he didn't sign up to support the military effort, all I have to say is perhaps you didn't. But a whole lot of us DID sign up so you could sit in your house and spew such garbage from your mouth.
-
this would be OK, if the military gave up it's advertising budget...is this private schools too?
-
I thought they'd been doing this for years already.
-
sheesh, it's just a call from a recruiter. All the kid has to do is say "I'm not interested" if they aren't interested. Besides, what harm can come from actually talking to a recruiter and asking questions about the military? I talked to several recruiters when I was a high school junior and senior. They were courteous, honest and helpful, which I can't say the same about some of the college recruiters I talked to.
-
I don't think this info should be made available to anyone. if my kid is interested he can call you.
but if employers and colleges get the info then I see no reason why the military can't have a shot at selling your kid on their program too
-
Make the little Sad Sacks do a mandatory 2 year enlistment after high school, I'll guarantee the ones with the guts to complete their term of service will be better men because of it.
The ones who can't hack it can complete two years of community service picking up trash along highways.
-
We had recruiters at my high school. I probably should have gone into the service. My first couple years of college were a comoplete waste of time and brain cells anyways.
-
I think the military should enjoy the same privileges that any other employer may have WRT student information. That is... I will when they stop discriminating against people because of sexual orientation.
... and even if that is corrected, I don't think that they should be given preferential treatment.
I used to think that mandatory service might be a good thing. Then I remembered the UCMJ. IMHO, forcing anyone to adhere to the rules in that document is a violation of their constitutional rights.
Last, I'd like to know how much money we waste on selective service registration. The draft isn't ever coming back.
-
Something it seems is lacking in our society.
Then I remembered the UCMJ. IMHO, forcing anyone to adhere to the rules in that document is a violation of their constitutional rights.
-
Do you think the military should also have access to your childrens private school records?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Do you think the military should also have access to your childrens private school records?
I trust them more than businesses or universities (which are businesses).
-
Originally posted by weazel
Something it seems is lacking in our society.
Then I remembered the UCMJ. IMHO, forcing anyone to adhere to the rules in that document is a violation of their constitutional rights.
C'mon Weazel... that document is horribly out of date. We used to joke about it. No one actually thought it was possible to go an entire day without breaking at least one of the codes.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
I trust them more than businesses or universities (which are businesses).
I don't. I don't trust them any less either.
-
Dude look what the info is: "name, address and phone number."
If you give that to businesses, some of them will sell the info, and you are going to get spammed.
The military already has your name and address (when you registered for the draft). I don't see them doing anything evil with the phone number.
-
Recruiting... hell, all you have to do is create a first person shooter and give it away free.
I think I'm on to something. :D
-
Originally posted by weazel
Make the little Sad Sacks do a mandatory 2 year enlistment after high school, I'll guarantee the ones with the guts to complete their term of service will be better men because of it.
The ones who can't hack it can complete two years of community service picking up trash along highways.
Amen.
-
Ya know...my entire family was in the military (save for the women) and they all tried to pressure me into going into the military. I refused, and still do.
I know what a sacrifice is...talk to my uncle and my dad, who served in Desert Storm and Viet Nam...tlak to my grandfather about Korea, and my other grandfather about WWII...talk to my other uncle about Somolia and Panama.
I don't want to join the military for the same two rasons my dad and surviving uncle got out of it...one because they don't make good money, and two because I don't want to have my mom or girlfriend recieve a folded flag and a medal for valor. I don't want to put my famliy in a situation like that.
I'll put my family over Uncle Sam any day...
-
I don't see the surprise, shock, or dismay. Of course schools let recruiters in. Not all kids can afford college or are college-bound. I think it's a great thing. It's an opportunity kids can take or not, no one forces them.
-
Giving the Pentagon unfettered access to schoolchildren in order to turn them into emotionless non-thinking kill-bots sounds great.
I’m in!
-
Name, Address and Phone Number is "unfettered access"?
And just a question here....... if high school grads aren't recruited, where will the people that fill the ranks of the military come from?
Or are we just about to do away with the military because the US no longer needs one? Did I not get a copy of that memo?
If not our own sons and daughters..... then who?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Name, Address and Phone Number is "unfettered access"?
And just a question here....... if high school grads aren't recruited, where will the people that fill the ranks of the military come from?
Or are we just about to do away with the military because the US no longer needs one? Did I not get a copy of that memo?
If not our own sons and daughters..... then who?
My goodness, no more cannon fodder for corporate interests? Why we’d have………Peace for Christ sakes!
My friend I don’t care to argue this point because that’s merely another form of warfare. ;) But I will state my point more clearly. I can’t say I’ve attained great wisdom over the years but one thing I’m one hundred percent sure of is that “War” isn’t the problem, its “Warriors”.
To listen to politicians every Veteran’s Day spouting off about the terrors and inhumanity of warfare and then turn around and support yet another war makes me sick.
“A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy-Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts- a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments.”
- Thoreau
-
Originally posted by weazel
Make the little Sad Sacks do a mandatory 2 year enlistment after high school, I'll guarantee the ones with the guts to complete their term of service will be better men because of it.
The ones who can't hack it can complete two years of community service picking up trash along highways.
SOMEONE CALL WEAZ AND AMBULANCE!!! HE'S GONE CONSERVATIVE... EGAD THE HORROR!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!! WHATEVER SHALL WE DO WITHOUT LIBOWEAZ!! .... tis a sad sad day!! :D
-
Originally posted by blur
My goodness, no more cannon fodder for corporate interests? Why we’d have………Peace for Christ sakes!
Riiiiight... lets do away with the military. We'll be perfectly safe then. :rolleyes:
My friend I don’t care to argue this point because that’s merely another form of warfare. ;) But I will state my point more clearly. I can’t say I’ve attained great wisdom over the years but one thing I’m one hundred percent sure of is that “War” isn’t the problem, its “Warriors”.
What?? Ya... the DoD starts all the conflicts we get in.
To listen to politicians every Veteran’s Day spouting off about the terrors and inhumanity of warfare and then turn around and support yet another war makes me sick.
So we should just quit eh? All those "bad people" in the world will all get teary eyed and send us flowers and lots of bon bon's. :eyes rolling out of head:
“A common and natural result of an undue respect for law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy-Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts- a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniments.”
- Thoreau
I think Thoreau was not much more than a loser with too much time on his hands. oooooo... transcendental writing. Just get high and sit on a pond bank for awhile, you'll be a pro lol!!
-
So, do colleges and businesses get access to military bases and records?
-
So, Blur, at the present time you see no need for a US Military establishment?
They can all just disband and go home?
-
Blur that's cute and all but don't forget that those men of arms are the only reason you can sit on your bellybutton and spew peacenik blather in comfort and safety and freedom from reprisal. :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, Blur, at the present time you see no need for a US Military establishment?
They can all just disband and go home?
Questions about disbanding military institutions are too abstract for me. When I get on one of my peace and love kicks :D I’m not addressing the multitudes. I’m addressing YOU.
Conservatives are big on personal responsibility. So with this in mind do YOU pick up a gun if you feel it’s morally wrong? What your neighbor does is his own business.
From my observations most folks the world over are pretty much the same regardless of race or religion. They want some sort of gainful occupation, a spouse, companionship, kids, etc. Murdering fellow human beings is probably pretty far down on the To-Do list. Governments hide this fact from their citizens. I mention the word Iraqi and half the people on this BBS conjure up an image of Saddam Hussein and start salivating. Where does this image come from? Does anyone on the BBS have an inkling of what the daily life of an Iraqi citizen is?
-
Bravo, another nice dodge in the Blur tradition.
Pretty simple question. Either you think we need a military or you don't.
If you do, then the people have to come from somewhere.
If you don't, I'd love to see your explanation of why we don't.
Looking forward to your next "drive by" posting.
-
Originally posted by blur
I can’t say I’ve attained great wisdom over the years
This is one of the truest statements you have ever posted. Too bad it was burried in the trash you dumped on the keyboard.
Those who enjoy the freedoms of this country should be willing to defend them as well or do something to make the country a better place through public service. Those who condem this practice and refuse to support the country are little better than leaches.
-
few years back my son thought he was being slick and skipped outa class to hear the recruiter pitch - think it was two classes long. Never meaning to join, just wanted to get outa class. He even bragged about it when he got home....
can't tell you how many recruiters called him after that. It was fun to listen to him explain that he had changed his mind & wiggle his way off the phone ... must be a heck of a database. Phone calls, emails, mailings .... :)
I think 2/4 years would have done him good. I'd have no problem if they instated an Israeli type mandatory military service
-
Originally posted by hawk220
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A little-noticed provision in a new federal education law is requiring high schools to hand over to military recruiters some key information about its juniors and seniors: name, address and phone number.
One of the things where the US are sub standard compared to the rest of the world: privacy laws...
-
I'm not a conservative, you can't pigeon hole me that easily. :p
-
So, do colleges and businesses get access to military bases and records?
I dunno, but colleges and businesses do get access to your sons' and daughters' grades and transcripts, too. Still waiting to hear what the big deal is.
-
The big deal is that some enjoy the freedom provided by our armed services but don't want to acknowledge or endure the "unpleasantness" that is necessarily concomitant with providing that freedom. (Some of those folks even think that they know better how to provide that freedom than those that have done it so well for the past two hundred years or so.) Their fragile sensibilities are offended by the very thought that their children might be exposed in any way to the sexist, homophobic, non-PC, and generally unenlightened cretins that run amok in our military establishment.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by blur
Giving the Pentagon unfettered access to schoolchildren in order to turn them into emotionless non-thinking kill-bots sounds great.
I’m in!
This "emotionless non-thinking kill-bot" thinks you're an idiot. Without the Army I couldn't have accomplished most of the things I've done in my life. I've traveled the globe, learned several in-demand trades, and earned a college degree. Coming from my background growing up, none of this would have been possible if a recruiter hadn't been allowed to come speak to us at school. Everyone in that auditortium was given a chance to leave if they weren't interested. No one forces anyone to join the military.
-
Thanks for the constructive feedback guys. I’ve always wondered how the American government could be so immoral, intolerant and violent. Now I understand, it truly is a reflection of its citizens.
Lesson learned.
Oops, I’m sorry Toad. One more post and I promise you’ll have the last word.
Merry Christmas. ;)
-
I’ve always wondered how the American government could be so immoral, intolerant and violent.
Ever hear of the National Guard? Ever watch news footage of weekend warriors handling sandbags at a flood, or helping out at the scene of any natural disaster?
Are you suggesting if we dissolve our armies that threats would just stop?
Are you suggesting that if we dissolve our police departments, violence would just stop? (Ok, some of the anit-drug war protests sound this way, but I digress. ;))
In a perfect world, or at least in the bubble you live in, that is an ideology you can afford. In the world I live in, there'd better be armed forces. Tell me, Blur, how should we have responded to the 9/11 attacks? Should we apologize to the terrorists and do what they tell us?
Dare you to answer that question...
Anyway, there are many kids in our area that would have had no opportunity for employment/advancement without the military. How will Utopia take care of these people? Tax the rich, give to the poor? That's about all you're going to have left after you remove a legitimate job/training source.
Face it, the military is a win/win situation. The young people serve, gain education and training, and learn a little about the world and our government. I wouldn't worry too much about the "kill-bot" theory, BTW... we seem to have many ex-military here that are anything but automatons for the government. Easymo seems about as independent a thinker as anyone I read, as does Raub. Sandman is navy (right?), Toad air force, and Weazel served if I read him right. They land all over the political spectrum, so your brainwashing theory just doesn't hold water.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think 2/4 years would have done him good. I'd have no problem if they instated an Israeli type mandatory military service
For all the good it would do the people concerned... anything other than an all volunteer force would really and truly suck. The LAST thing I would want to ever have to do is push troops who don't want to be here. As it is.. there's always a few who are constantly on the "I'm getting the hell out of this roadkill service" and they are real pains to deal with. However... the majority of them suddenly re-up at the last second (these are moments I relish... I mean I truly live for it heheh).
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Their fragile sensibilities are offended by the very thought that their children might be exposed in any way to the sexist, homophobic, non-PC, and generally unenlightened cretins that run amok in our military establishment.
- JNOV
HUH? Don't tell me YOU believe this.
It's amazing what some people think about the military (especially those who've never been around it). Just the other day we had a visitor over who's never been associated with anything military. Her daughter is interested in the USAF so I was trying to explain things. At one point.. as I was talking about how "most" jobs are available to women in the DoD... Mom blurts some stupid crap out that went something like this.... "Most women who are in the military are masculine looking lesbian butch dykes aren't they?". The look of mixed confusion and utter disbelief on my face was apparently intense enough that she shut-up.
-
Tumor:
Of course not. Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was apparent.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by Kieran
In a perfect world, or at least in the bubble you live in, that is an ideology you can afford. In the world I live in, there'd better be armed forces. Tell me, Blur, how should we have responded to the 9/11 attacks? Should we apologize to the terrorists and do what they tell us?
Dare you to answer that question...
The people who planned and brought about the actions on 9/11 were amazinhunks to put it succinctly. Any person or group who causes death and destruction for ideological, political or economic reasons is immoral and should be brought to justice. Understand though that I also judge “our” actions with the same criteria.
An intelligent person will revaluate any negative experience as to its probable cause in order to learn, adjust and move on. In the case of the American people, we should admit the possibility that there are a whole lot of folks who don’t like us and at least review our foreign policy.
As an example, maybe after a reevaluation we decide to lessen our dependence on oil. Then the money we currently spend on weaponry could be used to subsidize alternate energy solutions.
If we put as much effort into helping our fellow human beings as we do in killing them. We’d have plenty of energy.
Israel is a perfect microcosm of our current world situation. They routinely use military weapons against civilians to solve their “problems” and yet with all their military buildup are they any safer?
Incidentally, I’m also a veteran. ;)
Peace.
-
So... I'm a little simple-minded here, so I guess I am looking for clarity... you are in effect saying we should allow a terrorist attack to coerce us into reducing our oil intake, removing ourselves from places where people don't like us, and live in peace and harmony, right? Then the next time a country attacks us directly, we can again admit it's our fault and change our country's operation, economy, politics, etc. to suit them?
Or are you merely suggesting we become totally isolationistic? After all, we can't be around people that don't like us.
Can we really end our dependence on oil by snapping our fingers? Not that I believe we shouldn't look into alternative energy sources, but you sure make it sound simple.
Gotta tell you... if we take the path you suggest, I think we'd all be better off digging bomb shelters, because we'd have people lining up to take shots at America.
*BOOM* -"Get out of Europe!"
*BOOM*- "Get out of Korea!"
*BOOM*- "Send more money!"
I prefer to not live my life perpetually rolled into the fetal position.
-
Originally posted by blur
As an example, maybe after a reevaluation we decide to lessen our dependence on oil. Then the money we currently spend on weaponry could be used to subsidize alternate energy solutions.
Just bring the boys home and let the price of oil rise to its natural level. The market will take care of the rest.
-
blur, how do you suggest one deals with the other guy that wants to kill or oppress you for ideological, political or economic reasons?
-
Blur:
I don't agree with much of what you've posted in this thread, but I think that you are absolutely correct about lessening our depenence on oil. Doing so would be good not only for us, but also for the Arab world.
I saw an interview with Thomas Friedman (author of The Lexus and the Olive Tree) last weekend and he was advocating a national project on the order of the Apollo or Manhattan projects to develop alternative sources energy. Doing so would benefit us in the obvious way (i.e., making us less dependent on foreign oil), but also it would provide a new vehicle for funding pure research.
The point that Friedman made that had not occurred to me before is that reducing our dependence on Arab oil will benefit the Arab world, too. As it stands now, in order to prosper, many Arab nations just need to drill holes in the sand. If oil were not the lifeblood of the world's economy, they would be forced to "drill their people" (his phrase) to develop first world economies. According to Friedman, there is some promising activity on the fringes of the Arab world (e.g., Morocco, Bahrain), but the heart of the Arab world (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Syria) is dead.
- JNOV
p.s. As to your observation that there are lots of folks out there in the world that hate us, I agree. I disagree, however, that we could change that in any meaningful way by altering our foreign policy. We wield our power the way that any dominant nation would and the way that dominant nations have throughout history. We, like all nations, act in what our leaders perceive to be our own best interest.
No matter how we "tweak" our policy to appear more warm and fuzzy to the world, we will be reviled, for no other reason than that we are without question the most powerful nation on earth and, as such, have unrivaled ability to act unilaterally, thumbing our nose at the rest of the world (see Kyoto). Give a nation perceived to be much "nicer" than us that sort of power and they will soon be perceived just as we are, if not more poorly. Actually, I think that we have, by and large, exercised restraint and used our power responsibly, particularly when compared with nations that have held similar sway in the past. (We have resisted the urge to annex Canada, for example.) :)
More important than our power, however, is the fact that many of the nations that hate us most stringently are, in effect, Theocracies and see our very way of life as an affront to their fundamental belief systems. These countries hate us and would remove us from the face of the earth if they had the means. They do not play by the rules, and must be dealt with harshly. (Oh, and before you ask, WE make the rules.) It makes perfect sense to me that we do what we can to guarantee that they do not obtain the means to destroy or seriously harm us. As you stated, "[a]n intelligent person will revaluate any negative experience as to its probable cause in order to learn, adjust and move on."