"Free Republic" Wingnuts on our idiotic JROTC ban
The proposal to banish JROTC from SFUSD provoked a lot of heated discussion over on the sfschools list. It is one of the issues that drives a wedge right into the divisions that have poisoned this BOE—with the unfortunate exception that Commissioner Kelly has joined with Commissioners Sanchez, Mar, and Lipson to form an apparently unstoppable majority in favor of the ban. That divisiveness of the idea was apparent in our list discussions.
For those who support the ban, the logic is clear and simple. The military discriminates against gays, "don't ask, don't tell" is unconscionable, we are trying to restrict access to our students by recruiters, ergo JROTC must be banned.
Those of us on the other side are simply aghast. JROTC does not discriminate, in fact it may appeal to gays who often feel most at risk in PE classes that it replaces. It has a long proud tradition in SFUSD. It is voluntary, harmless, and useful—not to mention the fact that it is subsidized and provides some budget relief to participating school's woefully stressed WSF budgets. Ultimately, this is an issue of priorities and liberty. The BOE should attend to the pressing, difficult school district business at hand and respect the right of JROTC students and families to live their life the way they choose.
But there is no telling the true believers any of this. For them it is black and white. We must save the JROTC participants from themselves.
And guess what? It is just as black and white for the wingnut crowd on the right.
So just for fun, let's sample the opinions expressed by the far-beyond-right-wingers who infest the Free Republic site, shall we? These are mostly zealots who have no voice in San Francisco (thank God!) but I think it is instructive to listen to their reactions to get a taste for how absurd this idea is to much of America:
For those who support the ban, the logic is clear and simple. The military discriminates against gays, "don't ask, don't tell" is unconscionable, we are trying to restrict access to our students by recruiters, ergo JROTC must be banned.
Those of us on the other side are simply aghast. JROTC does not discriminate, in fact it may appeal to gays who often feel most at risk in PE classes that it replaces. It has a long proud tradition in SFUSD. It is voluntary, harmless, and useful—not to mention the fact that it is subsidized and provides some budget relief to participating school's woefully stressed WSF budgets. Ultimately, this is an issue of priorities and liberty. The BOE should attend to the pressing, difficult school district business at hand and respect the right of JROTC students and families to live their life the way they choose.
But there is no telling the true believers any of this. For them it is black and white. We must save the JROTC participants from themselves.
And guess what? It is just as black and white for the wingnut crowd on the right.
So just for fun, let's sample the opinions expressed by the far-beyond-right-wingers who infest the Free Republic site, shall we? These are mostly zealots who have no voice in San Francisco (thank God!) but I think it is instructive to listen to their reactions to get a taste for how absurd this idea is to much of America:
More anti-americanism from the sexually perverse. As usual with this sub culture, personal priorities prevail.I know it's a cold day in the hell of San Francisco politics when I find myself in near agreement with the Free Republic crowd. Sends a shiver down my spine. Then again, so does the notion of this JROTC ban.
Just leaves you speechless.
I am simply mystified by the loony left, once again.
The Board of Education is made up of wanna-be politicians who don't think twice about using school kids as pawns.
I suspect that if the military were to openly welcome gays the City of San Francisco would still find a way to not welcome the military.
The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among Men. -Holy Bible
Mystfied? We're talking San Francisco, home of the gay caballero(a)s.
The resolution...would create a task force to develop a similar program without a tie to the military...
I can just imagine. Jackboots and leather body harnesses. Parents, give us your kiddies...
No Nat Guard during the next earthquake then.
I agree. All Federal Aid should be denied for San Francisco if they choose to forbid this program. JROTC is alot more important than just officer training.
Many kids go through that never go into the services, but for alot of kids this program is a savior. The only place of where honor, virtue and service are supported and encouraged. Unlike the bizzaro self esteem programs that give false praise, the JROTC programs encourage and reward achievement, teach core values, provide physical conditioning, and leadership skills.
The kids of San Francisco, especially the disadvantaged and the troubled suffer the most from this policy.
10 Comments:
I sent a letter to the editor of the Chronicle regarding my comments in the June 2 edition; so far, they haven't printed it. I sent it because I wanted to clarify my comments. So I'm reposting here:
"Editor:
"I would like to clarify a statement attributed to me in Friday’s installment of “Schools at Crossroads.” The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the military does not apply to the JROTC (in fact, there is a group of gay veterans who support the JROTC); in fact, some gay members of the JROTC have said they feel more comfortable in the JROTC than in their own schools’ locker rooms.
"I feel the Board of Ed members are using the gay issue disingenuously—that they just don’t want any kind of military presence anywhere in the city, let alone in the schools. Certainly, as the mother of an openly gay son, I absolutely would be against the JROTC if it were, indeed, discriminatory toward gay kids. Shame on Mark Sanchez for using gay kids to further his political agenda."
I renew my objection to the proposed JROTC ban in that it is selective: a majority of our BOE is saying that they won't provide any support or aid to an organization (the military) that discriminates against gays; and yet the school district they govern applies the law selectively in our placement of students with disabilities and arguably violates IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in how it offers program choices to those students. If we are going to spend the money to kick out JROTC, we should also spend the money to be sure we comply with the laws governing the benefits and choices offered to students with disabilities. I would further argue that SFUSD students come first - I haven't seen an iota of evidence that says SFUSD students have been discriminated against by the JROTC, but I have directly experienced the discriminatory placement policies imposed on my daughter and other students with disabilities in SFUSD.
Rachel, when I spoke with Heather Knight (the Chron reporter), I brought up the subject of discrimination regarding kids with learning disabilities. That never made it into the article, either.
I emailed each BOE member requesting that they reconsider ousting the JROTC program. I strongly feel that if the BOE members want to get rid of the JROTC on the basis of "don't ask - don't tell" and because the money helping to pay for the program comes from the Department of Defense which is funded by the Federal Government, then, the BOE should get refuse to accept any money from the Federal Governemnt.
The BOE is clearly on a path of imposing their personal political beliefs on the students of the SFUSD. How sad that they are so shallow minded.
I will not vote to re-elect any BOE member who supports doing away with the JROTC. However, to those on the BOE my vote is not important because many individuals within San Francisco simply vote on a familiar name with no knowledge of what's really taking place in our schools.
MMC
i find it remarkable that more than a month after this issue was raised, with an obvious majority poised to vote to eliminate jrotc, that people here continue to speak off the top of their heads without ANY backup information...
for instance, that jrotc is "subsidized"...
how do you know that?...
what we do know is that sfusd spends something in the neighborhood of a half million dollars to pay for this program (and the government puts in the rest)...
how much per year are these jrotc "teachers" earning?...
what would it cost to replace them with gym teachers?...
would it even cost ANYTHING (that is, is there room in existent gym classes to accomodate the 1600 participants at 7 sites)?...
when jill wynns, who has access to these kinds of facts (and some on this board have access to her) does not provide this kind of hard evidence, i tend to doubt that it exists...
i fully expect ms. wynns to make the case AT the hearing, to say that we would have to hire X amount of new gym teachers (and use the figure "at $75,000 each)...
why isn't someone posting those figures NOW?...
at WHICH schools will we need HOW MANY gym teachers?... and AT those schools currently, HOW MANY p.e. classes are there each day currently, attended by HOW many students?... what is the legal limit for students in each of those gym classes?...
in short, tell us whether the jrotc students can be accomodated in existent gym classes and if not, why not...
instead, we will have some "facts" thrown out on the night of the vote, facts that then can not be checked before voting...
were gym teachers "laid off" when jrotc was first implemented?... how many and in what year?...
or is this a bonus program, so that kids who did not feel like changing and showering at school after climbing ropes and running laps could instead dress up in uniforms and march around to get their physical exercise...
if it is a "bonus" (and i strongly suspect it is), then why should a program that serves primarily west side, middle class kids (there is a small program at mission, none at thurgood or isa or gloria davis) be spared a budget cut?...
yes, one question is the role of the military on our campuses...
if this board sticks to their guns (no pun intended), you can bet that the feds will offer to pay for the entire amount...
that would at least remove the budget cutting aspect of this issue...
if we stand strong, the military would probably also be faced with a choice - should they offer to cease military recruitment altogether on our campuses in exchange for keeping jrotc?...
that would be an interesting choice...
do they REALLY want kids to have jrotc if it would reduce their chances to recruit cannon fodder from among our poorest students with less future options?...
or are bodies for wars their chief aim?...
i fully expect that dan "i hate war" kelly is setting us all up (after all, dolly danny is up for reelection)...
at the last minute, he will be "persuaded" by commissioner wynns to switch his vote...
she will give him some sort of face saving measure which he will hope will please all (in an election year)...
if she works out a REAL change (program stays, feds pick up the tab, drills run by graduates of the program currently attending local colleges, overseen by gym teachers), everyone could be happy...
don't count on it...
and as i've said before, last spring, when this issue came up, then board president mar gave the colonel (powell?) in charge of the program an uninterrupted half hour at the podium to do a powerpoint presentation...
the kid i sat next to (who was off to annapolis in the fall) swelled up with pride, although he bristled at the colonel's assertion that this program served "poor" kids ("what is he saying - we're not POOR", said the kid to me)...
towards the end of the uninterrupted presentation, out of nowhere, the colonel began listing his own credentials, as though to prove he was a fit person to whom to entrust our sons and daughters...
he said: "i was the first person in my family to attend college; i was the first person to integrate the augusta national golf club; i have a purple heart - not a john KERRY purple heart, but a REAL purple heart"...
the election recently concluded, i wondered at not just his politics (swift boats anyone?) but his judgement - did he really think that this would NOT be met with gasps of disbelief?...
if he would say this to an adult crowd he believed he needed to CONVINCE (of the worth of the program), what was he saying (overtly or subtly) to young minds perhaps not sophisticated enough to know when they were being fed a militaristic line?...
since then, we have had an anonymous character reference for the colonel... they kept him hidden at the first board hearing... i'm betting they will keep him locked away on the night of the vote also...
we will hear about all these poor, at risk kids who are having their program yanked out from under them...
i have met many of these kids... they are nice kids... but they are exactly the opposite of at risk... they are kids who will seek out good programs precisely because they have seen what the streets provide and are choosing a different path in life...
jrotc did not change them from street kids to good kids seeking out worthwhile programs...
they sought out worthwhile programs BECAUSE they have grown up to be good kids...
absent jrotc, they will join the band, or drama club or debate team (probably already ARE involved with one of those groups)... they are likely to be active in young democrats or young republicans on their campuses (of which the three largest contingents are at lowell, lincoln and washington)...
if someone believes that they will be cutting gym class to tag the local 7-11, please make that case...
yes, it's nice to give them an alternative to gym class... but not for half a million bucks... yes it's nice to allow them to march around in uniforms... but this is 1600 kids out of 55,000... in a second year of budget cuts, which so far have affected primarily the east side...
"don't ask - don't tell" is on the way to a revision... this is exactly the way that revisions are sparked - when school districts say that the military must change with the times or risk being left behind...
endorsing the status quo merely emboldens the generals who, lest we forget, are sending our children to be killed on a daily basis (for oil? - or to "bring democracy to iraq"... you be the judge)...
if the board takes a tough line, we can send a message to the federal government... they will then have the ball in their court... they could save the program... trade it for a removal of military personnel from campuses and an elimination of on campus recruiting...
pick up the cost of the FULL program and let it be run by graduates of the program in local colleges (a stipend would come in handy) overseen by gym teachers...
but do not expect dan kelly to stand strong... i smell a set up...
it's an election year...
flogging the budget question with another 1200 words of... who could that be?
First, the budget impact is not the crux of the debate, in spite of your delusional attempts to focus exclusively on it. The notion that we have excess capacity to provide alternate, for-credit classes &mdas; both PE and other electives — for all the JROTC students is utterly laughable. Do you really think we're so overstaffed with credentialed teachers in our high schools that we can absorb this without impact? And the 500K that SFUSD pays would not necessarily go back into the WSF budget pool, would it? Isn't that money coming from restricted funds?
You're right, we should know the budget impact now. We should definitely have a clear accounting of the impact before any vote is taken. Why don't we have that? What fool politician would even think about voting for this without knowing the impact? Do they understand the budget crisis we're in, and the painful cuts that are happening all around? Why would they risk making the problem worse without fully researching the impact?
You're notion that JROTC should be demoted to some after school club is your personal fantasy that bears no relation to what is proposed. Is JROTC run as a non-credit, after school club in any other district? What makes you think it could be structured that way? There is some hand waving by the proponents for providing an alternative replacement program, but like the budget impact, the details are completely unknown. So far I have heard no information on how that would be designed or implemented. But a club format would not be a true replacement, would it?
As for the notion that the mighty BOE will bring the military to its knees, and that JROTC will suddenly be fully funded by the feds... you must be kidding. Seriously, you must be living in a fantasy world. Is it fully funded at any district in the country? Do you not know (it has come up in the list discussion and in print) that there is a long waiting list of districts that want JROTC but cannot have it because of the shortage of federal funds? The minute this resolution is passed, the JROTC administrators will shut the program down and give some other district(s) the chance to host it. It will have zero impact &mash; other than lighting up the right-wing airwaves with another squall of anti-SF, anti-gay bile.
But these are not the main considerations here.
For me the main objection is that JROTC is not equivalent to ROTC, it is not related to military recruiting on our campuses, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "don't ask, don't tell". JROTC has a long, proud tradition in SFUSD that has served many families for many generations. Tne BOE is attempting to regulate this choice out of existence and is imposing its values on JROTC families as the expense of their liberties and their freedom to live as they choose.
Umm . . . can't there be a word limit to comments?
gee.. i'm sorry to go over the "word limit" to comments... i didn't know there was one... but any straw man will do in a storm...
actually, i posted at such length as a reply to kc's (pretend) search for an opposing viewpoint (not being registered as a "blogger", i had to do it as "anonymous")...
had kc been serious, he could have placed my "comment" in any format he wished...
since i knew he was not serious, i got what i expected, which is more poor reading habits from kc, who attributes to me statements i never made, then disparages my economic premise as being not relevant...
well, i refer kc to his co-conspirator, nestwife, in her statement this morning:
----------------------------------
"Banning JROTC at a time when replacing the program with
mandated PE would be expensive, and at a time when the district is
already facing a $14 million deficit for the year in which such a
ban would kick in, is another example of "activist" policy, in my
opinion."
-----------------------------------
i await kc's response to nestwife that the economic argument is not part of the discussion...
fact is, tomorrow night, jill will use the economic argument to counteract the political one, and after much wringing of hands, dolly danny will withdraw his name as a co-sponsor (while hastening to remind us that "i hate war")...
there will be no facts or figures the like of which i have suggested... we will just be asked to believe jill wynns...
and for the record, kc, i never suggested that jrotc be reduced to "club" status (although kc was probably confused - a la the lipson doc request episode - by the fact that i suggested that were jrotc NOT available, that these non at risk students would likely be participating in clubs rather than tagging 7-11's)...
here is what kc THOUGHT i said (in his own words - poor punctuation left untouched):
-----------------------------------
"You're notion that JROTC should be demoted to some after school club is your personal fantasy that bears no relation to what is proposed. Is JROTC run as a non-credit, after school club in any other district? What makes you think it could be structured that way? There is some hand waving by the proponents for providing an alternative replacement program, but like the budget impact, the details are completely unknown. So far I have heard no information on how that would be designed or implemented. But a club format would not be a true replacement, would it?"
-----------------------------------
what i actually suggested as a compromise was that the military be removed from the program and that the drills be conducted by former graduates of the program now in college locally (hopefully with a small stipend) and that p.e. teachers (or subs) oversee the drills so the students could receive p.e. credit (similar to when a teacher must be in the room when an arts oriented teacher who is not credentialed conducts a class)...
this is what i said, kc:
-----------------------------------
"if she works out a REAL change (program stays, feds pick up the tab, drills run by graduates of the program currently attending local colleges, overseen by gym teachers), everyone could be happy..."
-----------------------------------
and then i said it again, at the close:
-----------------------------------
"pick up the cost of the FULL program and let it be run by graduates of the program in local colleges (a stipend would come in handy) overseen by gym teachers..."
-----------------------------------
get it kc?... "overseen by gym teachers"... that indicates that this is a for credit substitute for climbing ropes and running laps...
kc's answer (and i marvel at your abilities of prognostication) is that the feds would say, "goodbye" because you say (without posting links to any factual evidence of same) that districts around the country are clamoring for this program which we are lucky enough to have...
i suggest that we won't know until we try... why not propose that compromise (and perhaps also link the issue to military recruiting on campus) and see whether the feds choose to eliminate jrotc under those circumstances (their choice, not ours) or offer to accept those conditions?...
i happen to believe that the last thing they want is the publicity of a district saying, "we don't want the military on campus", because THAT might spread from district to district...
but if we just say, "please don't take our jrotc away and make children climb ropes and run laps", we won't be giving the military that choice, will we?...
and if the military does choose to leave?... good riddance... and if we have to take that $500,000 and pay for gym teachers, fine (but i doubt that we would - i think they CAN be accomodated in existing p.e. classes - in fact, i've been told that juniors and seniors don't even HAVE a p.e. requirement)...
happy reading, kc... try not to insert your own personal biases WHILE you read... read for comprehension and THEN insert your biases...
Not sure why you think I would not post your response as it's own post on this blog. I might not respect you, nor find your arguments at all persuasive. But that does not mean I would not publish them. No one else seems to be stepping up the plate.
Luis cited the fact that there is a waiting list of schools that want JROTC. It was cited in the Chron article here: Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman, said 402,000 students are enrolled in 3,361 JROTC units around the country, and another 700 schools are on a waiting list.
Sorry I mis-read your proposal, but now that you've clarified it I have to question the budget impact even more. You seem to be proposing an alternative to P.E. staffed by both P.E. teachers and some sort of student teachers. So the each current subsidized JROTC staff are replaced by two paid staff. Again, you seem to think that there is some kind of surplus of P.E. teachers sitting on their hands with nothing better to do, or that the fact that Juniors and Seniors don't have to take P.E. means that there are teachers with nothing to do. The fact is that elective JROTC classes currently taught by subsidized teachers would have to be replaced by other paid staff. Replacing it with a program that required more than one teacher seems, shall we say, unwise.
You predict that Jill will make the economic argument that will sway Dan and doom the proposal. But I'll repeat, what fool politician would choose to get behind this proposal without first gaining a clear understanding of the budget impact. You imagine that Jill will make her point without the benefit of facts or figures, but that presupposes that the proponents will be unable to counter, that her argument will carry the day. I don't believe she will make any assertions about the budget impact without benefit of evidence, but even if she did—what due diligence have the ban proponents made?
You keep steering this debate towards the budget questions, which is odd since it is utterly damning for the ban proponents. But I will continue to say that this is not the crux of my opposition to the ban. Nestwife and others can make their points on their own—she could make them here if she felt like it—I spaek for myself. My main objections are those of a little-l libertarian. I note with interest that you make no attempt to defend the fact that this ban would infringe on the liberties of JROTC students and families.
I guess that I get to be anonymous, since I am frankly too busy to become 'active' in another location. I was drawn here by the rhetoric.
Funny and shocking, all of this. Yes, there is a waiting list of schools for JROTC, and even for SROTC. I teach SROTC. I work with JROTC schools in my role. Would any of you believe that I am working really hard to ensure that I am not "recruiting" in the JROTC schools? That may be since the mission of JROTC is to build better citizens. Have any of you walked into their classrooms? Have you noticed the plaque prominently placed, usually right next to or over the door? Are we outraged about a "better citizenship" program? In those places where the "detestable" military has been working lately, people faced sincere threats from terrorists to have their fingers painted black in order to vote. The turnout was incredible. They showed a passion for citizenship that we might learn from. What can the world think of a "leading democratic nation" that is lucky to get 50% turning out to vote?
SROTC: I teach future Officers and I am proud to do that. They are fine and noble folk, looking for ways to contribute to the community. With my help, they are reaching out to do things like pandemic drills, CERT training, assistance to agencies like the Red Cross, United Way, Boy Scouts, and University groups that include Kiwanians of all ages, Honors Society Members, and so forth. We encourage diversity and inclusiveness, within our statutory limits, and even started a patriotic club that has no entry requirements.
Hey, the thing about statutory requirements is important. I took an oath back in 1982 "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." I take that very seriously, and the foundation of the work that I do is the Law of Our Land. I still serve actively. I have been to Iraq for a year already. I have been proud to assist on our shores in the aftermath of disasters, both in uniform and as a volunteer.
I cannot say that DoD is pure, or purer, or purest. Then again, these days many of the once-revered institutions are under well-deserved attack for their abuses of power and influence. If any of you are so pure as to cast the first stone, I will hand you the stone, stand in your defense as you make ready to cast that stone, and even bare my own back as I stand guard to provide you the target you so desire. Otherwise, please expend some energy trying to make your community, nation or world a better place.
Post a Comment
<< Home