Choice to Kill

Hi Rob,

I think the answer to your question is because the parents/students want it so. I looked for some numbers of how many families wanted JROTC as a P.E. credit course and how many did not, but could not find any. The best I could find to support my initial assessment is the article cut and pasted below.

According to the article parents, students, and teachers are in favor of the JROTC; I would wager for the same reason I am, discipline and good training. Perhaps they do not feel the same way about the other student activities you mention.

AsianWeek

The Voice Of Asian America
Save JROTC In The San Francisco Schools
By: Nelson Lum, Jun 16, 2008

In November 2006, the commissioners of San Francisco's Board of Education attempted to eliminate the popular Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp program from the city's high schools. The resolution directed the program to be phrased out in two years and called for the creation of a task force to find a comparable replacement program. It passed despite overwhelming opposition from parents and students. Since then, the task force has not been able to find anything that can compare favorably with JROTC, and last December, the commissioners, by a 5 to 2 vote, extended the program until June 2009.

JROTC is a program supported by all principals of the affected schools, all alumni associations, all parents and teachers associations, and all student body associations. Asians comprise more than 70 percent of the program, and minorities comprise 90 percent. It requires participants to perform community services and is strictly voluntary. In 2007, JROTC cadet seniors had a 100 percent graduation rate, while their non-JROTC counterparts had a rate of approximately 90 percent. Commissioner Eric Mar, who voted to eliminate and to not extend the program, has consistently praised the program for its effectiveness in developing leadership, discipline and character for the cadets.

Mar has stated many times that his main objection to the program is his belief that it is being used as a recruitment tool for the military. A closer look at the facts simply does not support Commissioner Mar's contention.

At the end of the 2007 school year, only two out of 1,465 cadets in the JROTC program enlisted in the military. The percentage of enlistment into the military by non-JROTC students was and has been higher than JROTC cadets. In fact, JROTC's policy prohibits instructors from recruiting.

As we all know, the school district is experiencing a budget crisis. Half of the JROTC instructors' salary is subsidized by the federal government (approximately $586,000 for 2007), which also pays for all instructional materials such as computers and uniforms. If this program is eliminated, additional teachers will have to be hired at full cost, something the district does not have funding for.

It would be detrimental - both fiscally and socially - to the schools if this program was eliminated. JROTC has proven to help students develop leadership skills, discipline, assertiveness and, most importantly, self-esteem. High schools must find ways to facilitate these young men and women who, had they not found a social group to belong to, would likely have experienced a negative affect on their social development.

A group of parents, educators, veterans and concerned citizens formed a committee to fight for the reinstatement of this program. They recognize the value of JROTC for our youngsters and are aware that, if the program is eliminated, San Francisco will most likely never be able to reintroduce it again. There are currently over 700 school districts on the waiting list for JROTC. San Franciscans should feel fortunate that this program is established in their school district and available to their students. The members of the committee have chosen "Choice for Students" as their slogan to get a ballot measure for the November 2008 election, so all San Franciscans can make their voices heard.

Choice should be offered to students and their parents. San Franciscans just passed Prop A to support their schools and students, and should continue fighting for better schools and more programs for their students. The committee welcomes and needs everyone's help.

Dear Marcy,

If the purpose of JROTC involves "teaching discipline and good training," I vote "No."

I strongly support the separation of school and state.

Best, Michael

I don't know what the "separation of school and state" has anything to do
with this. Even if you believe there shouldn't be any public schools,
whether you like it or not, we currently DO have public schools, and the
question is whether government bureaucrats, using the students as pawns in
their petty political statements, or the parents of the students
themselves should dictate what goes on. I know which one I put my trust
in.

Jeremy

Dear Michael,

I also would prefer separation of state and everything! However, my
strong spot of "you are your brother's keeper" often clashes with pure
libertarian philosophy. Today, right now, we have a school/state
reality. Today, right now, we have youth desperately trying to find
order in the chaotic world of public education. Today, right now,
parents of modest means are grasping at opportunities for their
children, even the less then perfect chances.

BTW, if I seem a bit emotional about this, is because I live in a
middle class neighborhood, and know kids and parents struggling to do
well in a public school setting.

Regards,

Marcy

Dear Marcy,

If the purpose of JROTC involves "teaching discipline and good

training," I vote "No."

I strongly support the separation of school and state.

Best, Michael

From: Marcy Berry
To: lpsf Activist List
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:05 PM
Subject: [lpsf-activists] Choice to Kill

Hi Rob,

I think the answer to your question is because the parents/students

want it so. I looked for some numbers of how many families wanted
JROTC as a P.E. credit course and how many did not, but could not find
any. The best I could find to support my initial assessment is the
article cut and pasted below.

According to the article parents, students, and teachers are in

favor of the JROTC; I would wager for the same reason I am, discipline
and good training. Perhaps they do not feel the same way about the
other student activities you mention.

AsianWeek

The Voice Of Asian America
Save JROTC In The San Francisco Schools
By: Nelson Lum, Jun 16, 2008

In November 2006, the commissioners of San Francisco's Board of

Education attempted to eliminate the popular Junior Reserve Officers
Training Corp program from the city's high schools. The resolution
directed the program to be phrased out in two years and called for the
creation of a task force to find a comparable replacement program. It
passed despite overwhelming opposition from parents and students.
Since then, the task force has not been able to find anything that can
compare favorably with JROTC, and last December, the commissioners, by
a 5 to 2 vote, extended the program until June 2009.

JROTC is a program supported by all principals of the affected

schools, all alumni associations, all parents and teachers
associations, and all student body associations. Asians comprise more
than 70 percent of the program, and minorities comprise 90 percent. It
requires participants to perform community services and is strictly
voluntary. In 2007, JROTC cadet seniors had a 100 percent graduation
rate, while their non-JROTC counterparts had a rate of approximately
90 percent. Commissioner Eric Mar, who voted to eliminate and to not
extend the program, has consistently praised the program for its
effectiveness in developing leadership, discipline and character for
the cadets.

Mar has stated many times that his main objection to the program is

his belief that it is being used as a recruitment tool for the
military. A closer look at the facts simply does not support
Commissioner Mar's contention.

At the end of the 2007 school year, only two out of 1,465 cadets in

the JROTC program enlisted in the military. The percentage of
enlistment into the military by non-JROTC students was and has been
higher than JROTC cadets. In fact, JROTC's policy prohibits
instructors from recruiting.

As we all know, the school district is experiencing a budget crisis.

Half of the JROTC instructors' salary is subsidized by the federal
government (approximately $586,000 for 2007), which also pays for all
instructional materials such as computers and uniforms. If this
program is eliminated, additional teachers will have to be hired at
full cost, something the district does not have funding for.

It would be detrimental - both fiscally and socially - to the

schools if this program was eliminated. JROTC has proven to help
students develop leadership skills, discipline, assertiveness and,
most importantly, self-esteem. High schools must find ways to
facilitate these young men and women who, had they not found a social
group to belong to, would likely have experienced a negative affect on
their social development.

A group of parents, educators, veterans and concerned citizens

formed a committee to fight for the reinstatement of this program.
They recognize the value of JROTC for our youngsters and are aware
that, if the program is eliminated, San Francisco will most likely
never be able to reintroduce it again. There are currently over 700
school districts on the waiting list for JROTC. San Franciscans should
feel fortunate that this program is established in their school
district and available to their students. The members of the committee
have chosen "Choice for Students" as their slogan to get a ballot
measure for the November 2008 election, so all San Franciscans can
make their voices heard.

Choice should be offered to students and their parents. San

Franciscans just passed Prop A to support their schools and students,
and should continue fighting for better schools and more programs for
their students. The committee welcomes and needs everyone's help.

JROTC earns course credit for physical education. To me, this is very
different than earning course credit for an academic subject. In my high
school, students who were on a varsity sports team were able to get course
credit for PE as well. I don't really see the difference.

I also doubt that most kids in JROTC are particularly militaristic in
nature. From my experience dealing with the "regular" ROTC kids in
college (University of Michigan Engineering has an extremely large ROTC
contingent), I didn't find them to be any more militaristic than your
average student.

Jeremy

To clarify what I think Rob is getting at -- generally speaking,
military personnel fall into two groups, officers and enlisted. Thus
officers technically don't "enlist" in the military, they receive
commissions. Of course, JROTC stands for Junior Reserve Officer
Training Corps, thus one would naturally expect participants in this
program to be more interested in becoming officers than enlisting. As
Rob implies, this would not occur immediately upon high school
graduation, but only after JROTC graduates went on to take ROTC in
college, or went to West Point, the Air Force Academy, etc. When
Nelson Lum refers to the low number of JROTC grads enlisting in the
military, there is no indication that he is counting those entering
the military down the road as officers.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Marcy,

  I also note from the Asian Week article that the JROTC program in
San Francisco is receiving a federal subsidy to the tune of several
hundred thousand dollars a year:

"Half of the JROTC instructors’ salary is subsidized by the federal
government (approximately $586,000 for 2007), which also pays for all
instructional materials such as computers and uniforms."

  This alone seems like a sufficient reason to oppose the JROTC ballot
measure from a libertarian standpoint, since I don't see any other
outcome being likely to lead to the elimination of that taxpayer
subsidy.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

Yes, JROTC is taxpayer supported, as are public schools. I would love
to see a perfect world where both would disappear, but that scenario
does not appear likely.

Marcy

JROTC is SPONSORED by the military, but it is not PART OF the military.
The students in the program are not considered to be "in the military."
Many of my friends in college had their college tuition paid for by the
National Security Agency, because their studies in certain subjects were
thought to be important to national security. I was part of a research
group whose funding mostly came from the Department of Homeland Security.
However, I was not "part of" the DHS. Indirectly, part of my funding came
from DHS (they paid the University and the University paid me) but that
didn't make me a DHS employee.

Jeremy