San Francisco school board votes to dump JROTC program

[Newsjock]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/15/ROTC.TMP

After 90 years in San Francisco high schools, the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps must go, the San Francisco school board decided Tuesday night.

The board voted 4-2 to eliminate the popular program, phasing it out over two years.

... Their position was summed up by a former teacher, Nancy Mancias, who said, "We need to teach a curriculum of peace.''

... Opponents said the armed forces should have no place in public schools, and the military's discriminatory stance on gays makes the presence of JROTC unacceptable.

[keopeli]

1. You gotta love SF! So "ballsy"! n/t

[RamboLiberal]

2. I disagree - I say let the students choose

If they couldn't get students to join then the JROTC would die. For many kids this is a good program that helps the kids. A lot of military people who do this program are a very good influence on the kids.

But yes, I would tie it to you discriminate against gays then the program has to go.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. The issue is discrimination

Should a school district sponsor a "junior Ku Klux Klan" chapter on the hopes that kids won't join and the group will fold?

School policy is clear: clubs and other groups supported by the district may not discriminate. Period. The government's prohibition against gay people is discriminatory, therefore it is in violation of school policy.

I am glad that, after some 15 years, the matter is finally being resolved on the side of fairness.

[slackmaster]

I don't see how taking away students' choices enhances "fairness"

The kids should be informed about the military's policies, and allowed to decide for themselves.

[EFerrari]

22. What kind of a choice do gay students have in this situation?

Not to mention, how far would you trust a recruiter with your sixteen year old minority kid? To be honest? To be "fair" in how s/he represents the career track to you?

Please.

[slackmaster]

26. I haven't seen any indication that gay students aren't welcome in JROTC

We even have one contributor on this thread who said JROTC did not discriminate.

Not to mention, how far would you trust a recruiter with your sixteen year old minority kid?

Are we talking male recruiter, female student, female recruiter, male student, or what?

To be honest? To be "fair" in how s/he represents the career track to you?

Honestly, I don't know. But nobody has presented any actual evidence that they aren't fair. And the sub-thread starting with reply #12 makes it sound like a pretty good deal.

[EFerrari]

36. I think the "no free lunch" rule applies here.

There are many other ways to give those kids the same experience without tying it to the military -- which as we speak has discriminatory and dangerous policies towards gays and towards women.

Why do our kids need to learn THAT? They don't.

[hogwyld]

78. Excellent poits

I see the JROTC as an early indoctrination into military life. There are many other, more positive ways to develop.

[slackmaster]

82. The core of my political philosophy is personal choice

Kids in San Francisco schools used to have N available options for extracurricular activities for personal enrichment.

Now they have N-1.

[hogwyld]

86. While I generally agree with you on choice

I still feel that htere are better, more productive ways to develop than to go into the JROTC to study the fine art of cannon fodder. As an extension of our military, it should stay out of our schools, and away from our children.

[slackmaster]

90. I'm from a military family, my brother is an officer in the Navy

There's a lot more to a military officer's career than "the fine art of cannon fodder".

My brother served on a minesweeper in Iraq. Nobody on his ship ever killed or wounded anyone, and none of them was injured during their extended tour. They successfully disarmed or destroyed hundreds of mines placed by the Iraqi military and other pieces of ordnance that if left behind could have killed or wounded innocent people for years into the future.

Serving in the military is an honorable endeavor. If not for some health issues I would likely have taken that path myself.

[slackmaster]

68. A gay or lesbian student can join JROTC and even become an officer

If he or she wishes to go on to a career as a military officer, the price is keeping quiet about his or her sexuality until we get the law changed.

[mondo joe]

81. Now imagine saying "A Jewish kid can join the exclusive club at the

price of keeping quiet about his Jewishness."

[slackmaster]

83. If gays and lesbians were actually banned from the military

Your analogy would be valid.

[mondo joe]

84. But gays and lesbians ARE banned if you know they're gay or

lesbian.

[slackmaster]

85. Like a country club that says "We don't care about your religion, BUT..."

If you happen to say you are Jewish, you are a goner.

It sounds silly to me too.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. Let The Military Fund It, Run It, and Do It Off Campus

Then, nobody's choice is affected.
The Professor

[slackmaster]

70. Good idea, Professor

:toast:

[kestrel91316]

74. Point is, only the STRAIGHT students get a choice.

Gays aren't allowed in.

[Ka hrnt]

104. Agreed.

This is asinine, as are the comparisons of the JROTC to the Ku Klux Klan. While it's statistically insignificant, I've seen several "bad eggs" at my school get set straight by the JROTC program. The kids in it have a sense of pride and commitment that is sorely lacking in today's youth. Is it perfect? No. Is there some perfect program? NO. Ideals, by definition, are unreachable. All I see here is punditry; everyone's complaining, not offering any solutions. Whatever small potential problems there are are overwhelmed by the discipline and ethos the program instills in our (frighteningly unguided, in my opinion) youth. The freepers must be licking their chops seeing people here smear our military. Those in this thread doing so disgust me. Yeah, there are some bad eggs in the military (as there are everywhere), but it's an honorable career path predominately filled by good people.

[michreject]

94. That's a reach

clubs and other groups supported by the district may not discriminate.

The JROTC is not discriminatory. The Governments policy is. The school is not supporting a discriminatory entity (JROTC), a discriminatory entity ( US Government) supports the school.

[PassingFair]

105. Same difference.

In practice.

[michreject]

110. Not even close

JROTC has NO control over what the US Militart does or does not practise. If the school wants to ban JROTC, at least be up front about it. Not some BS reason.

[w4rma]

3. Very dumb. (nt)

[torrentprime]

62. I agree

This is a mistake: Politically, and practically.
Politically: we have just seen the first act of "San Francisco" values, and it will be trumpeted across the nation as proof of the "military-hating" Democrats.

Practically: the program itself doesn't discriminate. Yes, options on the far side of the program will discriminate against gays, but so does the damn military itself, and gay people still join and serve in the closet. They choose to do so. The San Fran board has just removed that option from these kids re: the JROTC, and, as Newsom said, just made SF that much less of a welcoming place for families and kids. Bad move, across the board.

[DRoseDARs]

4. One of my friends was in JROTC in high school and went on to military intel...

Currently, she serves in Germany but was in South Korea before that. Her and her family are staunch... Bush-hating liberals (though, they bought into the whole 'Kerry is Scary' nonsense; I'm at a loss to explain that in light of their liberal views). I believe they, as a military family, would take issue with San Francisco's decision.

[greccogirl]

5. What a shame. My son was in ROTC

all during high school and it was a great program that helped him to get through high school and be a part of a group that steered him away from a bad crowd.

[keopeli]

6. Actions like this will IMPROVE the JrROTC and ROTC programs in the future.

Yes, this will cause a fight. SF is known for picking fights on social issues. They are like the "white blood cells" of our country. They work to eliminate discrimination.

I predict that, once the Military finally yields on discriminating against gays, the JrROTC in SF will thrive and a whole new field of talented young people who need a break may choose military service once again. I look forward to that day. But, today is not that day.

Today, we've got a LOT of problems to fix and it's going to take ALL of us to do it.

Good luck to SF in their fight against discrimination that hinders our military.

[wellst0nev0ter]

7. If They Can't Accept Gays While In San Fransisco, They Can Fuck Off (eom)

[slackmaster]

15. It's supposedly the military's position on gays, not JROTC's in particular

If the military's policy on gays is wrong, then THAT is what needs to be fixed.

This is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[PassingFair]

106. It's a DIRTY BABY.

Until the baby is washed, it's not coming to the table.

[jody]

8. Truman, a Democrat, desegregated the military and that was a courageous act. IMO the military has

done more to help minority groups that bigots target than any other federal agency.

I agree the military's position on gays/lesbians is not right but I also know several gays/lesbians in the military and they recognize the military is making progress.

Why link JROTC to the gay/lesbian fight when a more interesting brouhaha would have been with Christian evangelicals.

[MissMillie]

9. Wow.... people sure have a screwed up idea of JROTC

My kid was in JROTC, and they do not teach a curriculum of war.

If the program is popular, it should remain. It will do a world of good for some kids.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. The issue is discrimination, not war

The reason behind the decision is that JROTC, like all US military programs, discriminate against gay people. School policy prohibits allowing organizations that discriminate from being on campus. Therefore, the districts decision is the right one.

Or should the discrict change its own policy and permit groups that discriminate access to students?

[MissMillie]

14. From the article

".. Their position was summed up by a former teacher, Nancy Mancias, who said, "We need to teach a curriculum of peace."

I didn't make it up.

I also don't think you punish anyone but the kids by taking the program away. Yes, I'd like to see inclusivity, but until it gets here, there's no reason to get rid of a program that does a lot of good. Our town's JROTC unit does more community service than the rest of the school clubs combined.

[David__77]

19. You say "no reason" to get rid of program?

You think the witch hunt against homosexuals in the military is not a serious matter? JROTC discriminates against gay students because it cannot offer the same benefits to gay students in terms of recommendations to military academies and so forth.

It seems to me that if there were a club that discriminated in this matter against a racial minority, you might have a different position, but you don't care a bit when that discrimination affects a sexual minority.

[MissMillie]

27. Please don't put words in my mouth

Yes, I think it's a serious matter. Yes, I think that gay students should be entitled to the same benefits.

While I know for sure that the military bans gays, I'm not sure that I've ever seen a rule saying that a gay student can't be in JROTC. I don't think I've ever seen the issue come up, and the article doesn't indicate that there was a particular problem with it.

[David__77]

32. They can be in it, but they can't get the same benefit from it.

One of the major benefits is getting recommendation to an academy to become an officer. They can't do that. If they can't pursue a military career, it rings hollow to state that they can be in JROTC, so somehow this is different than the military's discrimination.

[MissMillie]

39. By extension do you also feel that we should cancel the football program

because not everyone will get a football scholarship?

What if they get a scholarship to a school where there are military recruiters? Should we then abolish the NCAA scholarship program?

[David__77]

40. If they said "gay football player cannot get scholarships," yes!

But that is determined by a player's skill, regardless of race or sexual orientation or religion. But no matter how disciplined and skilled, a gay JROTC member will be denied that opportunity.

[MissMillie]

actually

an "openly gay" JROTC member.... and yes it sucks.

But I'm not a fan of things that take away scholarship opportunites from anyone right now. People have a hard enough time trying to find ways to pay for their kids' education.

Yes, it's flawed. But as someone else said, this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. You're going to shut down opportunities for 1600 kids... that's just sad.

[David__77]

44. I advise you be mad at the military, not the SF school board.

They are the ones denying opportunities. Someone has to take a stand, some time. That time is now.

[MissMillie]

50. you really believe that denying these 1600 kids a JROTC program

is going to change military policy?

I think it's just going to deny these kids a JROTC program.

[mondo joe]

54. Would you make the same argument for a group that excluded Jews?

Or women?

[MissMillie]

64. your beef is w/ the military.... not w/ these kids

but you're punishing the kids.

Look there is nothing here that says that the JROTC program is being cut due to discrimination in the JROTC program. No one has cited any case in which gay students are being banned from the program.

The problem these folks have is what happens after high school. And since that is where the flaw lies, let's let those bodies deal with the flaw instead of punishing the kids.

Seriously do you think getting rid of JROTC is going to change military policy?

Fact is that the military has in the past discriminated against women, and people of color, and probably jews. Yet it's still here. Does it need work? You bet it does. But denying this program to these kids isn't going to make that happen.

If we're looking to affect change, we need to do something that will actually work.

And yes, I'll make that argument against ANY group. I don't think we should EVER waste our time on action that won't work. That argument is pretty sound.

[mondo joe]

71. I sincerely believe that no one here would argue that a group

excluding Jews or Latinos should be permitted in the schools, no matter what they did for the white kids.

[feminazi]

60. Bernie Ward was discussing this last night.

Bernie is as liberal as they come. He was critical of the school board's vote and mentioned that the JROTC allows ALL students to join, including gays.

I am not pro-military, but I think a lot of kids are going to be hurt by this.

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Also from the article

... the military's discriminatory stance on gays makes the presence of JROTC unacceptable. This position has been the core reason against the JROTC program in San Francisco schools since Clinton signed DADT into law. That opposition to JROTC has picked up anti-war sentiments since then does not change the original reason for ending the program.

[MissMillie]

38. fine

but that didn't make my statement about people having a screwed up perception of JROTC incorrect.

My argument against the "curriculum of peace" statement is not flawed, is it?

[EFerrari]

31. Then the rest of the school clubs need to get off their behinds.

If keeping our young people out of the claws of slimey recrutiers, I say, punish the little bastards. Punish them with opportunites to widen their experience and work in their communities as members of those communities - not as some kind of prelude to becoming frikken cannon fodder for BushCo.

[EFerrari]

23. Yeah! Our here, we reject the idea that discipline and team skills

can only be learned in a military uniform.

Thank God.

[MissMillie]

28. I don't think I said that either

but I can understand why your argument looks stronger if you argue against what I didn't actually say.

[tinymontgomery]

12. As a JROTC instructor

I think I can speak on this. In my unit we don't care if your gay, just don't do it in uniform, we also don't allow hetero sexuals to fool around in uniform either.
As for the curriculum:
First year: learn how to wear a uniform (gee we get kids to dress well), first aid, pt/health (our pt is way better then the schools) orienteering (finding your way with a compass) teamwork, respect for everyone.
2nd year: History, and sciences
3rd year: Navy Knowledge (Admiralty law, organization etc), Naval Skills, Navigation, Damage control, seamanship, etc.
4th year: Leadership.

The program provides all uniform items, shoes, shirts, etc. For some of my cadets it’s the only jacket they have or the only pair of shoes that are decent.

Leadership is taught in all the classes in practice. We are not allowed to teach military tactics, form a paint ball team, wear camie's or anything else that could be construed as encouraging war fighting.

We perform over 1000 hours of community service, tutor at a middle school, perform monthly at a retirement home, adopt a hwy, have a drill team, athletic team, academic team and various other teams. We hold a Naval ball which is considered the best dance at the school with a catered sit down dinner that non-JROTC students ask to attend.

I've taken my cadets skiing, sailing, trips to the Naval Academy, Washington DC, underway on a navy ship for a week and various other places that they would never take if not for this program.

Here the community loves the cadets and asked for them to perform consistently.

I work 3 out of 4 weekends a month and take them on trips during my breaks.

We provide a place for kids that don’t always fit in anywhere else. Most jocks don’t make it in my program because their not disciplined enough or have the ability to think as a team. They earn lots of medals, ribbons and awards that they are proud to display. The parents of the cadets that do well in the program are proud of the achievements of their cadets. We give guidance for college (sometimes more then any one else will.

What we are not- Recruiters. In my program unless you show an interest in going into the military we don't push it. If you want to go in we make sure you understand what your getting into and that the recruiter treats you right.

Are all programs great, or perfect, no, but neither are sports team, colleges, business etc. Visit a well ran unit and you will see pride and teamwork that would make a you blush at how well they are.

[MissMillie]

17. our drill team is better than your drill team!

:silly:

well, maybe not so silly:

http://www.oxps.org/newnjrotc/index.htm

[tinymontgomery]

18. Your web page is too!!

Looking at your accomplishments I'm glad your in a different area then me!

[David__77]

21. But you can't offer the same benefits to gay students.

They cannot hope to attend a military academy and become officers. So while this all sounds very nice, at the root of things, the program is straight-preferential.

[slackmaster]

I thought the policy was still "don't ask/don't tell"

I'm not convinced that prevents gays from becoming officers. (In fact I have met a few gay and lesbian officers in the Navy and the Army.)

If you want to say that policy effectively bans gays from the military, then that policy needs to be changed. It's not JROTC's policy.

[David__77]

34. Please. "Don't ask" is a joke. People are hounded out all the time.

People have been thrown out just for being seen in a gay bar or for private internet correspondence. That's not "don't ask, don't tell," it's "you better not be gay."

[slackmaster]

37. The policy is flawed and needs to be changed

Denying San Francisco students the opportunity to experience JROTC doesn't do anything to address the problem. It only hurts students IMO.

[David__77]

41. I understand, but disagree.

Such pressure from a public policy standpoint is an effective way of pressuring the powers that be to change the policy. They NEED the military to be accepted by the whole country. If parts of the country begin to reject it as bigoted, it's only a matter of time before they change it out of necessity.

[slackmaster]

48. The military is by nature ultra-conservative

Other than maybe the Roman Catholic Church, it's always behind the curve when it comes to modernizing ideas.

If parts of the country begin to reject it as bigoted, it's only a matter of time before they change it out of necessity.

Sounds like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. In the mean time one of our most important institutions is denied access to some very bright and capable young people, and vice-versa.

How about another approach - Encourage people of all classes, cultures, races, ethnicities, etc. to actively participate in the military, and work to change it from within (while our newly elected Democratic Congress drafts a law to make non-discrimination mandatory)?

The military will come around eventually, just as it did with African-Americans. Your approach is idealistic, mine is pragmatic.

[David__77]

52. I do advocate progressives entering the officers corps.

But I also advocate cutting off institutional support from school districts, private universities, etc. I think it's fine to do both: pressure from within and from without.

[mondo joe]

51. Clarification: it prevents any gay person not willing to keep his life

a secret from joining.

[TechBear_Seattle]

56. Further clarification: keep his life a total, complete and absolute secret

Straight military people can: wear a wedding ring, put up pictures of their family, bragged about having "scored" while on leave and talk openly about their spouse/significant other, just to name a very few things that gay military people may never, EVER do if they want to keep their career.

I am curious to know how many straight people would be willing to never, ever talk about anything whatsoever to do with their spouse/significant other on the grounds that they will be fired with a negative recommendation if they did.

[slackmaster]

67. There you go

It's not entirely fair, it's not right, but there ARE gay and lesbian officers in the military.

My brother is a senior Naval officer BTW. I'd classify him as a Reagan Republican. I asked him what he'd do if he found out that someone under his command was homosexual, but that person's sexuality had no impact on his or her job.

He said he'd let it slide. Replacing a good sailor or officer is hard. Pragmatic and practical, and I believe most people in the military feel the same way about it, official policy notwithstanding.

[mondo joe]

72. Yes, there I go: I think programs should have to be fair to the students

to be in the schools.

[slackmaster]

76. JROTC does not discriminate

Denying access to it us unfair to students.

[mondo joe]

80. I'm not committed one way or the other about the decision, but

I can see an argument for it.

I guess the citizens will have to decide by reflecting their feeling in their votes for the school board.

[TechBear_Seattle]

55. Ask Gretha Cammermeyer.

Ask Tim McVeigh. Ask the hundreds of men and women whose military careers were cut short because they dared wear a ring or put a picture of their partner up -- things that heterosexual servicemembers can do with impunity. Ask the families of men and women killed in Iraq because DADT has kicked out quite a few of the Arabic translators needed to keep up with incoming intelligence. Ask anyone at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Then, after bothering to do a modicum of research, come back and try to write the same thing.

[slackmaster]

103. You are talking about life in the military, not in JROTC

JROTC does NOT discriminate.

Discrimination against gays in the military is de facto.

[TechBear_Seattle]

111. The question was about DADT

I responded with regards to the post I to which I was responding. :hi:

[tinymontgomery]

35. So get the vote out and change it

I have no problem with who serves.

But your right lets get rid of this program and put those kids that we help and provide experiences for just hang out on the street and not have the option of seeing what’s out in the world and providing them an environment of support (I'll cancel the movie night I have planned for them and they can go in the fields and get drunk with the rest of the kids). By the way about 43% of the school kids here are on free or reduced lunch so they wouldn't do much of anything before, after or during school or on their summer breaks if it wasn't for us. But you know one of them may not be allowed into an academy so lets get rid of all of it.

You would be suprised at how many of the kids we get would fall through the cracks. I've mananged to put 2 cadets into regular college that never thought about going to college or continuing their education but never mind lets stop that. Then program provided 5 online SAT courses for us last year so I had 5 students improve their grades into the 1400's but never mind we shouldn't help them.

AGAIN, get out the vote and change the rules.

[mondo joe]

61. Would you be as supportive of a program that excluded Jewish kids?

I mean as long as they were helping all those non Jewish kids...?

[torrentprime]

63. Excuse me

but "the program" does not discriminate against gay kids! Gay kids join. The military itself, the parent org, discriminates, but not the JROTC itself, yes?

[TechBear_Seattle]

88. Suppose the US military had a "no Jew" rule....

Suppose that anyone in the US Armed Forces who "told" about being Jewish -- was caught praying in Hebrew, was noticed to wear a Star of David, mentioned celebrating Pesach or Channukah or Shavuout or Sukkot, was found out to have had a rabbi do their wedding -- was summarily drummed out. Suppose that JROTC didn't discriminate against Jewish kids, but told all participants that, if they were Jewish, they were wasting their time and would never, ever be allowed to serve in the US military because of the "Don't ask (about being Jewish)/Don't tell (about being Jewish) rule.

Would that make any difference on whether the JROTC program should be allowed in public schools? Why or why not?

And please note, comments that "the US is not anti-Semitic so the analogy doesn't apply" will be treated as refusal to answer honestly.

[KitSileya]

98. That is a very good analogy.

It puts this discrimination into sharp relief, doesn't it? I think that those who support this ban recognize that the JROTC isn't evil, that it does good work for disadvantaged students, and that in a normal situation, joining the JROTC, and then the armed services is honorable. However, we are not in a normal situation. Unlike many civilized countries in the world, the US does not let gays and lesbians serve openly in the armed forces, and in fact, actively drive them out even if it's to the detriment of the military and the nation (re gay arab linguists.) It is a fact that the advent of DADT brought on an increase of gay service members being dishonorably discharged - losing the armed forces many, many skilled and dedicated non-coms and officers.

In addition, the country is engaged in an illegal and unjust war, meaning that each and every member of the armed forces who serve in Iraq is a war criminal. I am not trying to denigrate the troops by that (inflammatory) statement, but that is things drawn to their natural conclusion. Why would we want anyone, let alone our teenagers, to be encouraged to join up as long as there is a man in the White House who orders the men and women in uniform to commit war crimes? Why would we knowingly want to put them in a situation where they have to choose between following their beliefs and following orders - in the former case, they will be prosecuted as criminals and in the latter, they become criminals.

[torrentprime]

109. So

By your argument, letting the kids join after JROTC after Bush is out of office would be fine? The program should be available or not based on the current CinC?

And everything in your first paragraph is a strike against the military, NOT the JROTC. Since the JROTC does not discriminate as does the military, it should not be banned.

[KitSileya]

112. I don't know too much about the JROTC,

or the ROTC for that matter, but I do believe that one of its purposes is to groom kids for military service. That means that for LGBT kids it's like joining the junior league, but never being able to try out for the school baseball team, no matter how old or how good - and having a shot at college scholarships/the national league? Forget about it. This is a definite strike against the JROTC even if they themselves do not discriminate against gays.

As for the war in Iraq, that is a second strike, and yes, until Bush** is no longer CinC, and America is no longer committing war crimes in Iraq, encouraging youngsters to join the military is the same as encouraging them to commit crimes. Serving in the armed forces is honorable, but until November 7th, no part of the American people held much honor in the eyes of the world, and its military serving in Iraq even less.

The DADT policy is for me incomprehensible, but then again, I live in a country where gays and lesbians have been allowed to serve openly since 1972. That doesn't mean they haven't faced, or aren't facing discrimination in the armed forces, but at least we've got humane laws on the books to protect them.

[torrentprime]

113. The problem

with all of your post is that reflects a classic conservative mindset, not a liberal one.
Let's boil all of your post down to two things--it says, "Kids shouldn't join the JROTC, not even straight ones, because of X and Y." Fine. I disagree, but it's your opinion. The next part of your post is the troubling part: "Let's take the choice away from ALL kids, let's impose my opinions on everyone and forcible remove the program, even from those who want to join, even from those who join knowing of the limitations on military service, because my opinions matter more than other people's free choice."
That's not liberal, that's not progressive, that's not free: it's controlling behavior of all simply to make your own point. Very sad.

[torrentprime]

108. Easy question

"Suppose that JROTC didn't discriminate against Jewish kids"
You've already answered the question for me--thanks! By your own hypothetical, the JROTC does not discriminate against Jewish people, and as such should not be banned. That was easy.

It's not the schools fault, nor the JROTC's fault, nor the individual kids capable of being helped the JROTC; it is the military's fault, and since the JROTC is not the military itself, and does not discriminate against gay people (or Jewish people), it should not be banned from school districts with a non-discrimination policy.

Thanks for the softball; I thought you were going to pose a hard one!

Further errors with your analogy: "told all participants that, if they were Jewish, they were wasting their time and would never, ever be allowed to serve in the US military." Wasting their time? Wasting their time? Your hypo assumes that serving in the JROTC requires a desire to serve in the military later, or that the time spent in the JROTC is not its own reward. Who are you to tell these kids, gay or not, out or not, that they cannot participate in a program which by all accounts from the GLBT community on this thread, is a wonderful, rewarding, rich experience. Who are you to tell these kids that years of service and benefits from this program are all for nothing due to the assumed lack of advancement opportunities AFTER the program is over. Once again, you defeat your own argument--the program itself is non-discriminatory; the problems are after the program is over, from a different parent organization!

Who just took this option away from the kids, gay and straight? Who just took a great program and killed it for an entire community as a political protest against the program's parents? The "liberals" on the school board. Great. If I need community programs killed due to an ideological disagreement, I'll vote for Republicans.

[Election]

102. As a former JROTC student

I felt that the organization gave me much-needed inclusion during my freshman year of High School.

[slackmaster]

13. Re: "We need to teach a curriculum of peace.''

What a bullshit comment.

Schools aren't supposed to be political indoctrination camps. They need to teach the basics: The three Rs, some liberal arts, fine arts, foreign languages, other subjects for breadth, some physical eduction, and how to think critically.

Opportunities for involvement in service clubs and other extracurricular activities are particularly important for children of poor families. Taking away JROTC diminishes those opportunities.

[EFerrari]

29. What crap. Are you advocating conscription for low income students?

That's the logical extension of your position. It would be a GODSEND for THEM.

And, why is refraining from blowing other people to kingdom come all of a sudden a political position? Didn't your mom teach you that beating on other people was frowned on, I mean, in general?

:puke:

[slackmaster]

33. Your logical extension does not wash

Participation in JROTC is voluntary, as is joining the military. Many poor people have elevated themselves to better lives and a good education by participating. Many immigrants have become US citizens by serving. Would you deny them that choice?

Didn't your mom teach you that beating on other people was frowned on, I mean, in general?

Both my mom and my stepfather, who was a veteran of World War II, taught me that the military is a necessary institution for maintaining peace and order. I agree with them.

[hogwyld]

16. Bravo S.F!

Now that we have a Dem majority in congress, maybe we can repeal the draconian law of witholding federal money when districts want to ban military recruiters access to our cherished youth. I would love to see the age of enlistment increased to 21. If you're not old enough to drink, you're definitely not old enough to murder thousands.

[Tatiana]

20. The JROTC, run ethically, can be very beneficial to students.

I've had several friends who where in JROTC in high school and it (in one case literally) was a lifesaver, allowing these guys to visit places they had never been before; obtain a global perspective on various issues.

If it is a popular program, students should have the option of choosing it. Perhaps the school board should have verified the curriculum standards before deciding to phase out the program. War tactics, to my knowledge, are never taught in JROTC.

[EFerrari]

25. The question is, why is it that these opportunities to widen

perspective ONLY available through a militarized program for kids?

[MissMillie]

42. they're not, those opportunities are available in other programs...

but not every kid will make the softball team, or the track team, or the debate team. Different kids have different skill sets.

Some of the kids who will not fit in elsewhere WILL fit in w/ JROTC... and it sounds to me like the program was very popular (1600 kids!!!! we've got 60 in our program... they've got 1600 kids!!!!)

[EFerrari]

96. So, whose failure of imagination is it that someone can't come up

with a program for kids who don't go in for traditional competitive activities?

I guess I was lucky. In my high school, three teachers got together and got a grant. They put together an "explorer's club" and we got to visit all kinds of places -- city and country -- and try all kinds of things. And ALL out of uniform.

[Tight_rope]

24. Good for them!

[qwlauren35]

43. Well... this is going to be interesting.

At the school where I taught last year, JROTC was an incredibly strong program that promoted discipline, self-reliance and teamwork. The kids wore their uniforms with pride, developed a sense of decent grooming, and overall, had the respect of their classmates.

I think it is perfectly acceptable for a school district to make a decision about JROTC.

However, I have no doubt that once other school systems and parents around the country see this take place, they will fight to keep JROTC in other school systems.

As for discrimination... I've heard people say that they wish JROTC discriminated MORE. Our JROTC often took students with severe disabilities who would never make it into the US Army. I sense that there may be somewhat of a disconnect between JROTC and the US Army on a few issues, for the very fact that these are children.

It should be interesting if the next big thing in SF is to initiate a protest/boycott against the Marines Toys for Tots program. And it would be really interesting to see if SF banned the military from coming in to aid with a natural disaster because of their discriminatory policies.

We have incredibly strong laws in place against rape... but it still happens because we have cultural biases that are stronger than our laws. And from what I've heard, it's an unspoken reality in the military. Some guys are NEVER, EVER going to accept women in military service. In all likelihood, even if the military put in place a "No Tolerance" policy against gay-bashing, it will continue for the same reasons. Doesn't make it right, but anyone who thinks it will go away lives in a dreamworld.

So, JROTC will go away in SF, and some kids will definitely lose as a result of this policy. But I have no doubt that this will simply kick off another backlash to preserve institutions that the majority believes do more good than harm.

Perhaps someone will post data on high school drop-out rates in comparable schools with and without JROTC programs. I've seen the good it does. And I'm not sure there is proof that the program itself discriminates against gay students.

[Big_Mike]

45. I find I must agree.

If San Francisco is so virulently anti-military, so be it. The next major earthquake comes by, let's have the military stand by and state, "We are not acceptable to the people of San Francisco due to the LAWS GENERATED BY CONGRESS (whose members are elected by the nation's citizens) regarding gays and lesbians. We wish you good luck. However, as we are not welcome, we shall not assist. Oh, yeah, and since we are not tolerated by your fine city, the US Coast Guard will assist anybody in Oakland, Berkely, or in Marin County. Contra Costa County, outside the City Limits of San Francisco will be supported."

If you wish policies to change, get more people to vote for good candidates, who believe as you do. Truman rammed down desegregation. If there is the political will for acceptance of gays and lesbians in the military, like most European countries do, then it will happen. Until such time as the hand wringers get off the sidelines and contribute to trying to implement change and stop making fine, empty, political gestures that only hurt others, I say a pox on this.

[hogwyld]

47. That sir, is a flawed argument

So, by your reasoning, if the military refuses to help S.F. (with is democratically elected representatives) does that mean the residents of that fine city can avoid paying their share of taxes slated for the military?

[Big_Mike]

99. No, I was arguing an absurdity

Because it would never happen.

My main point is the second paragraph. I served in 3 different units with gays in them, and the COs simply refused to do anything to get rid of good troops. Had they caused problems to unit morale, they would have been gone. But they were kept their full terms of enlistment.

[Duncan Grant]

46. JROTC (junior reserve officer training program) is a military program, not a local one.

For another view of the benefits of JROTC, take a moment to read an opposing argument from: The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors . Granted, the CCCO has an agenda but so does the JROTC...

<snip>
Schools Are bound by the Contract and the Regulations

"A school that desires to establish a JROTC unit must agree to the terms of the contract in appendix A (DA Form 3126, Application and Agreement for Establishment of a Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps Unit) and conditions prescribed by this regulation." from AR 145-2 Section 2-5

"The JROTC and NDCC are national programs authorized by laws enacted by Congress and conducted by the Department of the Army in cooperation with educational institutions." from AR 145-2 Section 1-2.

Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from Army Regulation AR 145-2, or Chief of Naval Education and Training (CNET) Instruction 1533.9H, the federal regulations governing Army and Navy High School ROTC programs.
<snip>

Anti-gay discrimination is germane to this discussion. JROTC is a Department of Defense program. Enough said?

Also, anyone care to look at a costs/benefits analysis for the school districts? While JROTC is a subsidized program - local school districts have associated costs which impact their bottom line. San Francisco isn't the first to reconsider these issues...

[slackmaster]

49. Next time there is a major earthquake in California...

...Let's all refuse to accept help from the military because they are discriminatory.

[mondo joe]

53. Straw man.

The military has a job to do, which tax payers fund and are entitled to use.

That doesn't mean the discriminatory organization is entitled to equal access to the kids of those tax payers.

[slackmaster]

65. No, it's a social contract

The military has a job to do, which tax payers fund and are entitled to use.

Yes, we own it, and every US citizen has both the right to get all of its benefits AND the responsibility to support the whole institution even though we may not like some aspects of it.

[mondo joe]

73. To the contrary - the military serves the citizens, not the reverse.

You seem to have that mixed up.

[slackmaster]

75. You're not reading my post correctly

I very specifically said "every US citizen has both the right to get all of its benefits...", but in return we are obligated to do things like pay taxes and make military service equally available to all of our children.

[mondo joe]

79. But military service is already available.

And though you may feel there is a further obligation, that is only your read.

[Duncan Grant]

57. When I think of all the competent GLBT people who won't be able to help...

because of ignorance and bias, well - that seems to me a greater tragedy. Not to mention all the competent women who never seem to make it into command positions in the military. We could certainly use their skills in a natural disaster.

But what were we discussing? Oh yes, JROTC. Let's start a new thread for this 'except in case of natural disaster' argument, shall we?

[hogwyld]

58. If the military refuses to help us

then we should be able to withold that portion of taxes that go to the military. We need to keep ALL of those slimeballs away from our kids until they are old enough (21+) to make their own choices.

[Vidar]

59. Good for Frisco.

[Der Blaue Engel]

69. No. Not "good for us"

I am a San Franciscan and a queer mom of a JROTC student. This is like throwing out basketball because the NBA is homophobic.

The SF JROTC does not discriminate. They even had a transgendered student at one of the schools who made "best in platoon."

My son just made "best in platoon" on Monday after leading his squad in the Veteran's Day Parade. This is the first thing he's ever had in his life that he's really good at and that he enjoys and feels proud about.

I am bitterly disappointed at the School Board for making this knee-jerk decision without even listening to the students and teachers who were there to tell them the JROTC wasn't a homophobic group. San Franciscans (including me) just voted last year to keep the recruiters out of the schools, so there was no U.S. Military presence foisting their "don't ask, don't tell" bullshit.

[hogwyld]

77. You can't have it both ways

It's unfair to "pick and choose" which parts of the military are allowed in school. While I agree that the recruiters should be banned from the schools, it's also right to ban the JROTC indoctrination programs as they support the military via proxy. Do you think marching around in their uniforms doesn't lead to further militarization of schools?

[torrentprime]

87. Simply

by saying that their "marching around in unforms" leads to further "militarization of schools" reveals a hint of bias on your part. You make it sound like they're Hitler's youth or something. "Oh no-kids who want to serve their country wearing uniforms! The horror!"
The military has a very long and very proud history, and chasing them off campuses is a bad idea. The military is an excellent option for many, many people, and all this does is remove valuable training and opportunities from kids who could use it.

Of course the military is not perfect; many old organizaions, groups, and institutions aren't. But that doesn't mean they should be banned entirely, when the people who pay the price are the kids and the institution itself, not the people making those decisions.

[Der Blaue Engel]

92. Sure I can

I also signed a "do not give my child's information to recruiters" slip at the school. The school is in no way "militarized." Check one out some time. It is indeed one thing to have an officers training core to teach leadership skills and quite another to allow recruiters on campus to entice and outright lie to students about the military (which has been well documented recently). There is, and has been, no recruiting allowed in the JROTC in San Francisco.

My son has no interest in the military, and he still enjoys this program. He has never been interested in sports and he was truant many times before he got into JROTC.

From their mission statement: "The United States Army's Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or JROTC, is designed to teach high school students the value of citizenship, leadership, service to the community, personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment, while instilling in them self-esteem, teamwork, and self-discipline. Its focus is reflected in its mission statement, "To motivate young people to be better citizens." It prepares high school students for responsible leadership roles while making them aware of their rights, responsibilities, and privileges as American citizens. The program is a stimulus for promoting graduation from high school, and it provides instruction and rewarding opportunities that will benefit the student, community, and nation."

And for those kids who are interested the military, is it right for San Francisco take away an opportunity that kids in surrounding districts will now have the advantage in?

Again, I have to say, this is like getting rid of youth basketball because the NBA is homophobic. (And let me just say, even though I HATE sports, that I would never do that to kids.)

[Sequoia]

89. San Francisco values-- Peace brother!

[Neecy]

91. I tend to support this decision

I don't like the militarization of our society and I especially dislike it in our schools.

We had NJROTC in my high school and I knew quite a few of them. At least 90% joined it to get out of the phys ed requirement and were pretty open about it.

[stevekatz]

93. This is so dumb

There's no policy that says a gay or lesbian child can't join ROTC.
And even looking past that, It's not the military's policy that prohibits gays from serving in the military.

It's the UCMJ that is written and controlled by the congress and the president.
So by the school's logic, they should refuse all federal funds, because it comes from a discrimitory organization.

lol, but they won't. Because it's the military itself that they don't like

[slackmaster]

95. Article 125 of UCMJ defines sodomy

ART. 125. SODOMY

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Saying that any particular act constitutes "unnatural carnal copulation" is really a matter of interpretation. A soldier or sailor could be court-martialed for all kinds of things that heterosexual couples routinely do.

[stevekatz]

97. your right

It's stupid and arcane,
It should be changed.

But the military can't change it, it's up to the congress to do it.
So saying the military itself is discrimiating is misleading.

[Finder]

100. JROTC is a good program...This is not good. n/t

[transeo]

101. I'm gay, and I disagree with SF schools on this

No, I am no fan of the Don't Ask Don't Tell rule. However, JROTC is not just about military service. It teaches leadership, integrity, community service, good work ethic and other valuable life skills. I was in the NJROTC in high school, and despite everyone pretty much knowing I was gay I still held the highest ranks possible every year until I quit as a junior.

I am not pro-military and I am very anti-war, but the fact is, JROTC programs offer a lot of opportunity to build self-esteem, critical thinking and learn skills that you can't get in any other public school program now that they are focused entirely on passing standardized tests rather than applicable knowledge and skills. Additionally, for a lot of the JROTC students, a military career is the only way they can ever get to college, and the JROTC is a way for them to get ahead.

One more thing on edit - all of my JROTC friends were accepting of me and supported my desire to serve the country. The military ban on gays is BS and they all agreed. It's a policy change that needs to be made, but it is not the fault of the JROTC or of the military itself. It is the fault of our legislators and presidents.

[torrentprime]

107. Ditto!

"I'm gay, and I disagree with SF schools on this"