I have mixed feelings about this. I haven't been following school board stuff enough recently to have a good sense of whether these three are a net plus or minus for liberty on the committee. Of course I don't believe that opposing JROTC in the schools should earn them a recall, but as they are three of the most left-leaning members, it's possible that having them off the board could be good for other reasons. Or not, it's hard to say.
that the most all-around authoritarian member of the board was Jill Wynns, a "moderate" whom I was deeply disappointed to see squeak back in at the last election, after early returns made it appear she'd been defeated.
This recall attempt is the kind of local nuts-and-bolts political stuff we would ideally be on top of, and take positions on, imho.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
You are right Starchild....I propose we take a position against it. We
should have no opposition to student and parent support for the JROC but
not as a curriculum item as it currently qualifies for a PE credit. When
this subject came up before, I believe Rob said we shouldn't have an
objection if kids want to march around after school and pretend they are
soldiers. They just don't need to do it on the public's dime as I
believe there is a paid teacher who conducts this.
Mike
Frankly,
I am all for their recall.
These school board members are denying the opportunity for these students to
belong to an organization that has shown in the past to increase discipline,
physical fitness, and yes.......grades. Removing opportunities for students
in the name of dogma is something that should be anathema to any
libertarian.
Some of these students will go on to join the armed forces........most will
not. The school board members should have zero say as to what these
students choose to do with their lives.
Frankly, this nonsense will probably increase membership in ROTC as students
are not stupid.........and will resent being told what to think.
Glenn Rapp wrote:
These school board members are denying the opportunity for these students to
belong to an organization that has shown in the past to increase discipline,
physical fitness, and yes.......grades. Removing opportunities for students
in the name of dogma is something that should be anathema to any
libertarian.
No, they are denying city taxpayer funding and sponsorship for the
organization. That is not at all the same thing.
I have taught after-school classes in discipline and combat skills (we
called it taekwondo) for middle school students. I did it as a
volunteer for a non-profit. I am sure that JROTC would have no lack of
volunteer drill instructors and even offers of space. But why the
taxpayers are paying for this program is really beyond me.
Moreover, I find these programs whereby young, impressionable minds can
experience the joys of government service to be disconcerting. Here in
Portsmouth, there is a Police Explorers corps, with high school students
holding cadet rank in the police department. It’s a little appalling to me.
~Chris
Chris,
You can parse this any way you want but the facts are
the program was 90 years old
Participation in this program was strictly voluntary
there were 1600 students participating in the program, who out performed
their peers academic academically.
the military covered half the cost of the program, with the school district
covering the other half.
The ROTC program did not discriminate in any way shape or form, it was open
to all students who chose to participate and meet their standards of
comportment and performance.
The school board decided to end this program because they did not approve of
the way the military and our Chief Executive handled the issue of gays in
the military. So they removed the option of participating in the program.
They decided to deny freedom of choice
They decided to deny freedom of choice
They decided to deny freedom of choice
Ironic that you speak of impressionable young minds.........since this was a
genuine piece of indoctrination.
Glen,
I have no problem with ROTC...if they want to have a club like a gay
students organization and meet after school on their own time and dime,
that's fine with me. Having the military fund this and have it a part of
a tax supported curriculum is not right. It has nothing to do with what
the school board members have to say about what these students choose to
do with their lives. It's about whether it is right to allow the
military to have paid access to high school students on the tax payer
dime.
Remember, they want to replace the ROTC with emergency response training
and that seems to be a good alternative.
Mike
Mike
The military is completely taxpayer supported, the school district is
completely taxpayer supported......
That is no secret, nor is it a revelation.
Your statement that this has nothing do with the school board members having
a say about what these students choose to do with their lives.........is
Rubbish
The school board members are imposing a their own personal dogma upon 1600
students in the district.
They took into account no facts as to the performance of students
participating in ROTC, no facts as to the personal wishes of the students or
the parents. They made the decision to quash the program based upon a dogma
which had literally nothing to do with Jr. ROTC.
How this act is consistent with Libertarianism is a mystery to me.
Don't ask Don't tell is also inconsistent with the
Libertarianism...............but as a board member I would never end an Ag
program or a Future Farmers of America program in a school district with
upwards of 1600 academically performing students participating because the
curriculum did not teach how to grow marijuana......
The board members made a conscious decision to enter the national politic at
the expense of students. I don't appreciate this when my district 5
supervisor does it without canvassing the views of his constituency, and I
don't appreciate it when a school board member entrusted with furthering the
educational opportunities of youths would ostensibly cause harm so that they
can further their own personal vanities.
Glen...the fact that the military is tax supported doesn't automatically
make it their right to be included in the curriculum. It is fine for it
to be a club and meet after school. Amtrak is publicly supported so
should they have an equal right to be a part of the curriculum? How
about the Post Office?
The fact is the military is a special interest group that enjoys a
privilege in high schools it doesn't deserve.
Mike
The military has always been, and will likely always be, a necessary part
of maintaining a free society.
Comparing the military to Amtrak or the Post office is nonsensical. For the
first part neither of these bureaucracies could ostensibly out-perform a
private entity performing a similar function. That they haven't been
replaced by more creative inefficient private entities is another topic
worthy of discussion.
But the simple fact remains that in order to maintain a military without the
criminal enterprise of a draft requires that the military be able to recruit
in a straightforward and honest fashion.
If one were arguing that the JR. ROTC program were guilty of spreading
mis-information, or indoctrinating children inappropriately then one might
ostensibly support its removal from the school district. We have heard
nothing that would lead us to believe this was happening.
The school board members are free as citizens to express their views about
how the government uses the military, about don't ask don't tell, and myriad
other issues.
But IMPOSING their personal views by denying others the opportunity to
participate in a beneficial program on a voluntary basis is what...?
What would a Libertarian call this...?
Glenn,
It seems to me that if JROTC is so great, which I'm not convinced that it is -- correlation with stuff like fitness and good grades is not causation -- the schools can come up with a similar program that doesn't involve militarism or the federal government. We want government out of the schools in general and in particular the Feds out of education, as much as possible.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild,
I do not care whether you are convinced that JR ROTC is great. Your
feelings about this particular ROTC program are non sequitur.
I am not convinced that we should have and/or fund duplicate school boards
across cities, counties, and states. But that too is another topic.
Correlation may not be causation, but in a school district as rotten as the
one the board oversees........eliminating an ostensibly successful, highly
utilized, 90 yr old program is absurd.
There is no evidence that Jr. ROTC is militaristic...? The majority of
those who enjoy, succeed and prosper in this program do not end up making
the military a career. And so what if they did..? I was in the
military....? My business partner Bill was in the military..?
You are demonstrating a clear bias which I feel is inconsistent with
Libertarian principles. The Libertarian party is in fact in favor of
maintaining a military sufficient to defend the United States.
I ask again. How was the school boards action consistent with Libertarian
ideals..?
Frankly,
I agree with you on part of the topic. The government has done a poor job
of educating the youth of this country. I also feel that the funding of
education thru my property taxes is a failed idea whose time has come and
gone.
But again..............you're changing the subject
I say the Second Amendment is more important...so how about having
shooting lessons for high school students as a curriculum item.
While it may be the board's intention to impose their personal views,
for Libertarians it shouldn't be the case. However the military's views
should not be given more sway than any other after school club. And that
is not the case today. The program is a curriculum item Glen and that's
what makes it wrong and offensive to Libertarians.
Well, my last note on this topic is that I still don't get it.
If you have no bias, then why is an Emergency Response class less
objectionable than the curriculum of the current Jr ROTC program which
enjoys great popularity..?
As far as shooting lessons..........why not..? Where I grew up every boy in
school knew how to safely handle a firearm before they started the first
grade.
What view/views is the military supposedly imparting to these children that
are ostensibly objectionable to a Libertarian..? No one on this discussion
has articulated a single objectionable item about Jr ROTC in San Francisco
other than it's distant and dubious relationship to "don't ask don't tell"
What exactly are the "views of the military" that you find personally
objectionable. I know a great many ex-military men and women who are
libertarian and I have yet to hear that there is a secret anti-libertarian
message that they play to us in our sleep...?
Please, enlighten me. I have a suspicion that you disagree with how many
politicians and/or commanders in chief have chosen to use/attempt to use the
military.
Your objection to Jr. ROTC as a curriculum is also a bit disingenuous.
Between the active duty and the reserves there are over 3 million people
serving in the military. It is a genuine career opportunity, and a
legitimate vocational training ground for others.
Well I just don't get why a career opportunity should be criteria for
another branch of the government to take over part of the public school
curriculum. All the points you make are well taken...but they don't add
up to a justification.
Compare your 3 million to all the police and firemen in the US who would
benefit from having every citizen trained to assist them with emergency
response.
Somewhat on this point: I didn't go to High School in SF, but my school actually had a rifle team and we'd bring rifles to school and keep them in a safe. This was during the 80s (late Cold War days) and the thinking was that this was good preparation in case of a national emergency. Which is a further illustration of how far our schools have sunk in such a short time!
Glen, Your first assumption was that every society needs a military. That assumption is just that. The constitution precludes a standing Army. We might be much better off having a constitutional militia, perhaps under the auspices of State governments. Lincoln had to fight the first years of the civil war using militias that volunteered. didn't Viet Nam and Afganistan demonstrate that foreign invaders, no matter powerful, cannot win in the end, not to mention Stalingrad.
My "assumption" was that the Libertarian party advocated that the United
States should maintain a military sufficient to defend itself against
threats to lives, liberty, property etc.
As for Vietnam, Afghanistan and Stalingrad
Firstly, neither I nor Jr. ROTC (that I have heard) has advocated the
offensive attack and/or occupation of a foreign land. In the case of
Afghanistan and Stalingrad these were obviously criminal enterprises and
occupations.
from a strict historical perspective I'm not sure it's accurate to say the
United States Military "lost" the war in Viet Nam (though I'm not arguing
that I supported this mission) From what I understand the US military never
lost a battle of consequence in Vietnam. Perhaps you're thinking of the
South Vietnamese army.
Certainly, adequate defense is a libertarian top priority. However that does not mean maintaining the present level of militarism. unless one is expecting the imminent arrival of the Klingon fleet.
Phil
I respectfully agree with Philip on this point.
I will also state that nothing I have heard this day has changed my stance
that the Students involved in Jr. ROTC in SF have suffered a grave
injustice.
And further, I am personally in favor of removing these irresponsible Board
members who have so vainly injected themselves into the national politic at
the expense of those students whose rights and education they are entrusted
to protect and nourish.
Be off with them.