posted on January 28, 2003 04:44:31 AM new
I have a fresh-faced 18 year old son and this articles scares the hell out of me. I have no intention of handing him over to fight in a war he neither believes in or supports. Is this the return of the draft?
Law ensures 'No Child Left Behind' by recruiters
01/27/03
Scott Stephens
Plain Dealer Reporter
High school students answering the telephone this winter may find Uncle Sam on the other end of the line.
A sleeper provision in the "No Child Left Behind" law, effective for the first time this school year, requires the nation's 22,000 high schools to give the Pentagon the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all junior and senior students.
Military officials say they need the names to enlarge a steadily shrinking pool of prospective recruits. They also argue that the little-noticed provision, buried deep in the law's 670 pages, simply enables them to compete with college recruiters.
For years, many schools have sponsored ROTC programs and allowed military recruiters on their campus. And 17-year-old boys who fail to register for a draft can be declared ineligible for most federal jobs and for federal financial aid for college.
But this is the first time schools have been required to hand over the names of students to recruiters, who are free to call them at home or contact them by mail. Schools that don't comply face the loss of federal money. While schools may have to comply, parents do not. They have the option of not allowing their child's name to be released by the school, but they have to sign a form.
With a potential war with Iraq brewing and increasing concerns about the erosion of privacy, some parents and civil libertarians are disturbed by the requirement.
"I do have some issues with it," said John Eckendorf, a Vietnam veteran whose son, Peter, is a senior at Cleveland Heights High School. "This is not so much an educational issue as it is a political issue."
Like many aspects of the sweeping education reform law - which emphasizes literacy by requiring states to prove, through proficiency tests, that students are learning - the military recruiting provision took a lot of people by surprise.
"This one kind of slipped in," said Michael Carr of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "We always have a concern about student privacy, and we're guarded about that. At the same time, this is the law, so schools will simply abide by it."
Most schools are doing just that, said Pentagon spokeswoman Maj. Sandra Troeber. Nationally, only six high schools are refusing, she said. Troeber refused to name those schools.
Many students don't see a problem with the practice, either.
"I don't mind being contacted," said Shaker Heights junior Kevin Lumpkin. "I was thinking about [enlisting]. I don't know whether I will, but I'll go if I'm needed."
Not everyone agrees. Last fall, about 60 students staged a protest at Bushwick High School in Brooklyn, N.Y., urging that the law be changed.
In the past, parents were asked to sign a form only if they wanted their child to be contacted by the military. Now, it's up to them to say "no."
Northeast Ohio principals say few parents have returned the opt-out forms, and virtually none has complained about being called by recruiters or about receiving recruiting letters in the mail.
"If they want it, they open it. If they don't want it, they pitch it," said Chagrin Falls High School Principal Tom Harrison.
Troeber agreed, pointing out, "It's a lot easier to get away from than telemarketers."
Of course, the military says recruiting young people for the armed forces is a lot more important than selling lawn services or gutters. The success of a volunteer force, they argue, depends on young people being exposed to the option of military service.
That was not always happening, military officials say. The number of high school graduates who said they intended to join the military dropped in the last decade from 32 percent to 25 percent. At the same time, the cost of recruiting a single student nearly doubled from $6,500 to $11,600.
Rep. David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, who sponsored the military recruiting amendment, was among those troubled by testimony before Congress that one-third of the nation's high schools were keeping military recruiters out of their buildings.
"The congressman decided to do this when he heard about a number of incidents where the military was denied access," said Vitter spokeswoman Tonya Newman.
But critics dispute those access numbers. Rick Jahnkow, program director for the California-based Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft, said the Pentagon keeps changing access numbers to suit its argument.
A few years ago, he said, the Pentagon said only two high schools west of the Mississippi River were barring military recruiters. In 2001, recruiters told Congress that more than one-third of all high schools were denying access. But last October, they stated publicly that 95 percent of all high schools allowed recruiters in.
"I think that potentially it's a major scandal," Jahnkow said. "The numbers don't add up."
posted on January 28, 2003 05:40:42 AM new
In the new political climate people may be afraid to tell the military not to approuch their sons. There have been people "investigated" for asking for a different stamp than a flag at the post office. They must be unpatriotic if they want something else. I guess they need pulled in and their loyalty oath reaffirmed. Just being investigated can ruin your life now. Remember the security guard in Atlanta the FBI made unemployable with accusations without ever charging him? Not to mention the Atomic scientist they followed around like the Three Stooges. Following him trout fishing...
The access law is not the return of the draft. They are working hard on that as we speak. Even if the military doesn't want it....
Perhaps the politicians know they will be asking for things that require manpower the military commanders wouldn't anticipate. In a normal world.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:50:00 AM new
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, RECRUITERS MUST MEET QUOTAS, THEY NEED TO CONTACT AND ENLIST A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN EACH MONTH.
THEIR PHONE CALLS ARE JUST LIKE ANY OTHER TELEMARKETER TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS WORTH.
I PERSONALLY FAVOR THE DRAFT, THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE PHONE CALLS.
posted on January 28, 2003 06:02:02 AM new
And remember children, those opt-out forms are forwarded to the OHS and filed under "enemy combatants" to be picked up.
I believe in the draft too. However, they should base it on income and age...
35 year-olds making over one million a year go first.....
Also high on the list, the children of CEO's and boardmembers of large defense contractor corporations.
Somehow, if this were the rule, America would always find a peaceful solution.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 28, 2003 12:13:00 PM new
Thanks, Linda. That way, I won't have to repeat myself.
The only thing that is diffeent is that of the two Draft bills coming before Congress right now, Rangle's Bill states that college is no longer a derferment. In other words, your kid is going to War, rich or poor! The point being that as it stands right now, few rich kids are in the All-Volunteer forces and the rich parents seem to be the ones sending everyone else's kids to die in battle. That's what I heard.
posted on January 28, 2003 12:58:21 PM new
Think about what, junquemama?
It's already been shown that [if you're speaking about the different races] that they already pretty much represent the % as they do in the population.
posted on January 28, 2003 03:15:09 PM new
LindaK.I was speaking of Rangle's Bill,Maybe the elected ones will notice someones son or daughter will be at risk,Something the entire population will have concerns about.
posted on January 28, 2003 03:30:03 PM new
Yes, junquemama, I know that.
What I'm saying is that we don't have a draft. He's suggesting we have the return of the draft. WHY?
Because he thinks the mucky-mucks will think twice about starting a war IF their children would be required to serve. Do you agree to this point?
He also says it will help with the racial inequity. I'm saying stats show the races are represented in the services as they are in the general population. We recently had a thread on here about that argument/debate.
So..my point is why would anyone want to get a bill passed to start a draft? It's silly because we have a volunteer force...they volunteered.
There's no need for a draft.
posted on January 28, 2003 04:14:42 PM new
>"What I'm saying is that we don't have a draft. He's suggesting we have the return of the draft. WHY? Because he thinks the mucky-mucks will think twice about starting a war IF their children would be required to serve. Do you agree to this point?"
Rangle's bill is a Public Awareness campaign and his reaching out for political power from a grass-roots effort to promote the class-warfare angle. In other words, he doesn't expect the bill to succeed in getting passed, but he can sure use the time to stand before the cameras and make a big stink. That will give him more political power and also raise the awareness levels of Americans to stand up and to say NO! IMO.
posted on January 28, 2003 04:26:52 PM new
LindaK,I think volunteering falls off as soon as rumors of war get started.And if Bush is true to his saying, war will last for many years, he will be the one to start the draft.
Rangel jumped in there to take everyone,because he knew the draft was coming down the pike.This way"no one" can avoid the draft.It will be voted down,and I dont know the time line for the draft to be re-written.At least it will be a delay tactic.Thats the way I see it.
posted on January 28, 2003 04:40:33 PM new
Borillar - to promote the class-warfare angle. As the dems always do. Yes and this is one area where I believe the dems are losing the swing vote. People aren't buying into this class warfare.
junquemama - I think volunteering falls off as soon as rumors of war get started. Well so far from what I've read that's not happening yet. That's being closely tracked so see if #s are dropping. I do agree that IF we implement a draft ALL should go. I just don't believe we need to implement one.
----
I know it's very hard for most here to understand, but there are many who will willingly join to protect and serve their country, they don't need to be forced to do so.
[ edited by Linda_K on Jan 28, 2003 04:42 PM ]
posted on January 28, 2003 04:53:53 PM new
This is not a popular war,no one has really defended us at home.The body bags will start adding up,There will not be any volunteers.We are talking about a whole different bunch of kids you expect to volunteer,The Me,Me,got to have it group.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:07:32 PM new
You know, junquemama, I've spent a lot of time thinking on this issue.
In my younger days, I felt all should be drafted [when needed]. And over the years I've had to deal with my feelings of anger at those who won't serve their country.
When those drafted fled to Canada, [during the VietNam war/conflict] I would have like to have shot each of them myself. Want to enjoy all our country has to offer, but they were unwilling to fight for it. And when the president gave them clemancy....I almost flipped.
Then I worked through that stage.
Maybe because I got older, partly because I couldn't convince myself we had a 'right' to force anyone to their possible death. Anyone who was unwilling.
Now I feel we should never have a draft. Maybe required service of some non-combative sort.
But now [in the Fall of my life] I'm of the position that if the younger generation is unwilling to fight for the benefits they enjoy here...then so be it. If those who do volunteer to serve aren't enough and we [the US] fails in whatever they're attemping...then so be it. All citizens will suffer, in the long run, because of that decision.
We haven't accomplished what we have as a nation by being pacifists. But if the pacifists win out...then all will live under the 'rule' of whomever wins.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:15:00 PM new
AND wanting to be more clear on your post = The body bags will start adding up,There will not be any volunteers.
That didn't deter the boys volunteering for Vietnam. Many I went to school with saw the bloodbath and signed up. Wanting to support their generation.
Again, on another thread here I posted the #s of those who were drafted vs. those who inlisted. Many more volunteers died than draftees.
As far as the 'me' generation. Yes, times have changed. Many parents have raised their children to believe ANY war is wrong. That may well change our history as free people one day. I just hope I'm not here to see it.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:15:27 PM new
Talking about living under someone else's rule because nobody would fight presumes that nobody would fight if we really faced a threat to the existance of the country like WWII was.
That is a whole lot different that the wars to promote ideological differences in unknown little hole in the wall countries and wars to gain market share or resources like oil.
Tell me with a straight face any war since WWII has been about survival!
Yeah Somalia and Panama were ready to land in New Jersey and go up the x-way into the heart of N.Y.
How much oil will they suck out of Iraq after occupying it? They should at least have to hire mercenaries to fight economic wars. That's what so many Europeans came here to get away from. Now we do the same #*!@.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:15:43 PM new
I know that I am probably just being a niave 40 something grandmother, but I remember Vietnam all too well. That, too, was a war that wasn't widely supported by the American people. I also remember the body bags of men who were drafted. I remember my friends who lost brothers that were drafted. I have a hard time understanding where freedom is when you are forced to fight in a war you cannot support. I know the "fighting for your country" line of bull. That may have been true in some wars past (WWI, WWII come to mind) but, I don't think this is our war. I think this is our president's and his father's war. And, I don't plan on losing my one and only son to it. Yes, I'm one of those marchers protesting against war. What can I say, my age shows everything. If the president is so bent on having this war, why not take the men out of the prisons (the men we are supporting with our tax dollars) and send them over to fight. It's quite the place for child killers, rapists and the like. They like to kill so much, let THEM do it for our president. But, not my son. I talk to people at my job everyday and the sentiment is the same. "Our president just wants to finish his father's job," is echoed quite a lot. So are things like "The world sees America as bullies. . .", "Why can't we take care of our own instead of everyone else?" These kinds of comments don't make me feel at ease. I didn't vote for Bush, but in all fairness I did give him a chance. What I have seen since he has taken office is unemployment rising, gasoline prices rising, the cost of food, clothing and shelter rising, and the threat of more violence rising. The only thing that isn't rising is "working class" income or benefits for the poor and elderly. And now he wants our boys to fight his war for him? How many of his nephews is he sending over? How many of his rich friends are sending their sons over to fight? I'm sorry, I respect all people's view on this issue, but I cannot support a draft and I cannot support this war (still praying there isn't one) and I cannot support our president. My son means the world to me and I will not see him leave this Earth before me.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:17:18 PM new
I never got mad at the ones who went to Canada,They only wanted to live,Cant hold that against them.Too many lies in that war as well,and way too many body bags.The men who did come back from Vietnam, I do believe to be heros.They were never fully thanked for all their efforts so many years ago.And knowing what I do know about Vietnam now,I would have driven my friends across the border,They didnt come back,Not even a body bag...
posted on January 28, 2003 05:21:25 PM new
And in the end what good came of it?
Did it keep North Vietnam out of California?
Probably more Vietnamese there now than if we had not fought.
People never seem to see what the consequences of their actions will be.
posted on January 28, 2003 05:50:52 PM new
The real sad part is the Government will draft them and after using them up, kick them to the curb. It happens after every war. We call them are heroes...until we don't need them anymore and can't USE them anymore, then turn our backs on them....
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
posted on January 28, 2003 05:59:26 PM new
gravid Talking about living under someone else's rule because nobody would fight presumes that nobody would fight if we really faced a threat to the existance of the country like WWII was. Presumes...no...I tried to make the point that IF they wanted to fight and IF there were enough of them to do the job. I wasn't presuming that. And wars/conflicts since WWII? Wars aren't haven't only been to protect 'our land'. They been to stop aggression on other countries, etc.
CBlev - Do I understand you right? You don't believe in forcing our boys but do believe in forcing others [your criminals?]
posted on January 28, 2003 10:17:07 PM new
The recruiting calls were going on when I was in high school a few years ago. I got the call from the recruiter who said:
"Have you ever considered a military career?" He went on to advertise the merits of the service in regards to educational pursuits, medical benefits, career training, etc.
I notified him that I had already been accepted into college and thanked him for his time. It was very simple~much easier than shaking off a telemarketer as mentioned above.
I think the PSAT and SAT people were selling lists of test-takers to the Armed Forces--LOL! Okay maybe not but they were only contacting select students.
If you are truly worried, high tail yourself to your son's school and sign the "NO" form. Or have your son practice, "No thanks, I'm not interested. Good-Bye." He already filled out the selective service post card when he hit 18 so he could be called anyway.
posted on January 29, 2003 03:32:02 AM new
Linda_K
No, Linda_K, I guess I didn't make myself clear enough. Sorry. I don't think anyone should be forced. I was just trying to make a point that if they are going to force people to fight in a war, they should START in the prisons and work their way up. But, they won't. The criminals will be allowed to sit this one out while the future of this country, fresh-faced 18 and 19 year olds, are made to come home in body bags.
posted on January 29, 2003 05:23:40 AM new
Cheryl - Thanks for the clarification.
To me, the most important thing to remember is these young men [and women] have volunteered to serve their country....they have not been forced.
And while there are 18 and 19 year olds serving, that is not the medium age of those in our armed forces. It takes many years to train for a lot of the placements.
wanting to be more clear on your post = The body bags will start adding up,There will not be any volunteers.