Symbols and symbolism
Once again, San Francisco has demonstrated that it is out of step with the rest of the nation, by passing Proposition I, a symbolic measure that called for an end to military recruiting in the city's public schools. It passed with the support of 60% of those who voted and that's no surprise, because there is no risk to passing this symbolic measure.
I wonder if the voters of San Francisco would have voted the same way if the langauge of the proposition had been written differently and had taken a real stand by banning military recruiters from having access to those students enrolled in the city's public schools. The city or should I say the school district can do this, but at the risk of losing federal funds. They were willing to vote for a symoblic, fist in the face of recruiters gesture, but when faced with the loss of federal funding, I doubt those voters would have been as eager to take the same stance.
The question is, why the vehement opposition to recruiting and recruiters? It is time to stop opposing the war by protesting the recruiting effort. If someone wants to protest the war, then protest the war itself. Make a sign, march in a demonstration, do whatever. But since the days of the draft ended, and the all volunteer force began, the need for recruiters and recruiting have become critical. The 2002 "No Child Left Behind Act" requires school districts to provide recruiters with the names, addresses and phone numbers of students or risk losing federal funding.
That same act also allows the student or the family of the student to chose to be left alone, that is to "opt out" and if they do so, they will not be contacted by military recruiters. One piece of paper, one form, and no recruiter will phone or make any other attempt to contact the student. It is very easy to opt out. In fact, the same type of opt-out method is currently in use by unions in California to allow those members who don't want their dues payments used for political purposes and the unions used the ease of this method as one of their defenses against a proposition to change that system in the most recent special election. So if it is good enough for union members, it should be (and is) good enough for students who don't want to be bothered by recruiters.
So, San Francisco, either do it right, and ban recruiting altogether and give up the money, or just pass out the opt-out forms and be quiet. Let the recruiters do their jobs and you do yours.
I wonder if the voters of San Francisco would have voted the same way if the langauge of the proposition had been written differently and had taken a real stand by banning military recruiters from having access to those students enrolled in the city's public schools. The city or should I say the school district can do this, but at the risk of losing federal funds. They were willing to vote for a symoblic, fist in the face of recruiters gesture, but when faced with the loss of federal funding, I doubt those voters would have been as eager to take the same stance.
The question is, why the vehement opposition to recruiting and recruiters? It is time to stop opposing the war by protesting the recruiting effort. If someone wants to protest the war, then protest the war itself. Make a sign, march in a demonstration, do whatever. But since the days of the draft ended, and the all volunteer force began, the need for recruiters and recruiting have become critical. The 2002 "No Child Left Behind Act" requires school districts to provide recruiters with the names, addresses and phone numbers of students or risk losing federal funding.
That same act also allows the student or the family of the student to chose to be left alone, that is to "opt out" and if they do so, they will not be contacted by military recruiters. One piece of paper, one form, and no recruiter will phone or make any other attempt to contact the student. It is very easy to opt out. In fact, the same type of opt-out method is currently in use by unions in California to allow those members who don't want their dues payments used for political purposes and the unions used the ease of this method as one of their defenses against a proposition to change that system in the most recent special election. So if it is good enough for union members, it should be (and is) good enough for students who don't want to be bothered by recruiters.
So, San Francisco, either do it right, and ban recruiting altogether and give up the money, or just pass out the opt-out forms and be quiet. Let the recruiters do their jobs and you do yours.
posted by me at 2:37 AM
<< Home