LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  June 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE June 2005

Subject:

Growing Problems for Military Recruiters: Parents

From:

Wren Osborn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:57:33 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (231 lines)

Those with kids or grandkids coming of cannon fodder age might find
this article useful.

Wren

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/nyregion/03recruit.html?th=&emc=th&pag
ewanted=print

Growing Problem for Military Recruiters: Parents
June 3, 2005
By DAMIEN CAVE

Rachel Rogers, a single mother of four in upstate New York, did not
worry about the presence of National Guard recruiters at her son's high
school until she learned that they taught students how to throw hand
grenades, using baseballs as stand-ins. For the last month she has been
insisting that administrators limit recruiters' access to children.

Orlando Terrazas, a former truck driver in Southern California, said he
was struck when his son told him that recruiters were promising students
jobs as musicians. Mr. Terrazas has been trying since September to hang
posters at his son's public school to counter the military's message.

Meanwhile, Amy Hagopian, co-chairwoman of the Parent-Teacher-Student
Association at Garfield High School in Seattle, has been fighting
against a four-year-old federal law that requires public schools to give
military recruiters the same access to students as college recruiters
get, or lose federal funding. She also recently took a few hours off
work to stand beside recruiters at Garfield High and display pictures of
injured American soldiers from Iraq.

"We want to show the military that they are not welcome by the P.T.S.A.
in this building," she said. "We hope other P.T.S.A.'s will follow."

Two years into the war in Iraq, as the Army and Marines struggle to
refill their ranks, parents have become boulders of opposition that
recruiters cannot move.

Mothers and fathers around the country said they were terrified that
their children would have to be killed - or kill - in a war that many
see as unnecessary and without end.

Around the dinner table, many parents said, they are discouraging their
children from serving.

At schools, they are insisting that recruiters be kept away, incensed at
the access that they have to adolescents easily dazzled by incentive
packages and flashy equipment.

A Department of Defense survey last November, the latest, shows that
only 25 percent of parents would recommend military service to their
children, down from 42 percent in August 2003.

"Parents," said one recruiter in Ohio who insisted on anonymity because
the Army ordered all recruiters not to talk to reporters, "are the
biggest hurdle we face."

Legally, there is little a parent can do to prevent a child over 18 from
enlisting. But in interviews, recruiters said that it was very hard to
sign up a young man or woman over the strong objections of a parent.

The Pentagon - faced with using only volunteers during a sustained
conflict, an effort rarely tried in American history - is especially
vexed by a generation of more activist parents who have no qualms about
projecting their own views onto their children.

Lawrence S. Wittner, a military historian at the State University of New
York, Albany, said today's parents also had more power.

"With the draft, there were limited opportunities for avoiding the
military, and parents were trapped, reduced to draft counseling or
taking their children to Canada," he said. "But with the volunteer armed
force, what one gets is more vigorous recruitment and more opportunities
to resist."

Some of that opportunity was provoked by the very law that was supposed
to make it easier for recruiters to reach students more directly. No
Child Left Behind, which was passed by Congress in 2001, requires
schools to turn over students' home phone numbers and addresses unless
parents opt out. That is often the spark that ignites parental
resistance.

Recruiters, in interviews over the past six months, said that opposition
can be fierce. Three years ago, perhaps 1 or 2 of 10 parents would hang
up immediately on a cold call to a potential recruit's home, said a
recruiter in New York who, like most others interviewed, insisted on
anonymity to protect his career. "Now," he said, "in the past year or
two, people hang up all the time. "

Several recruiters said they had even been threatened with violence.

"I had one father say if he saw me on his doorstep I better have some
protection on me," said a recruiter in Ohio. "We see a lot of
hostility."

Military officials are clearly concerned. In an interview last month,
Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, commander of Army recruiting, said
parental resistance could put the all-volunteer force in jeopardy. When
parents and other influential adults dissuade young people from
enlisting, he said, "it begs the question of what our national staying
power might be for what certainly appears to be a long fight."

In response, the Army has rolled out a campaign aimed at parents, with
television ads and a Web site that includes videos of parents talking
about why they supported their children's decision to enlist. General
Rochelle said that it was still too early to tell if it is making a
difference.

But Col. David Slotwinski, a former chief of staff for Army recruiting,
said that the Army faced an uphill battle because many baby boomer
parents are inclined to view military service negatively, especially
during a controversial war.

"They don't realize that they have a role in helping make the
all-volunteer force successful," said Colonel Slotwinski, who retired in
2004. "If you don't, you're faced with the alternative, and the
alternative is what they were opposed to the most, mandatory service."

Many of the mothers and fathers most adamant about recruitment do have a
history of opposition to Vietnam. Amy Hagopian, 49, a professor of
public health at the University of Washington, and her husband, Stephen
Ludwig, 57, a carpenter, said that they and many parents who contest
recruiting at Garfield High in Seattle have a history of antiwar
sentiment and see their efforts as an extension of their pacifism.

But, he added, parents are also reacting to what they see as the
military's increased intrusion into the lives of their children.

"The recruiters are in your face, in the library, in the lunchroom," he
said. "They're contacting the most vulnerable students and recruiting
them to go to war."

The access is legally protected. As recently as 2000, said one former
recruiter in California, it was necessary to dig through the trash at
high schools and colleges to find students' names and phone numbers. But
No Child Left Behind mandates that school districts can receive federal
funds only if they grant military recruiters "the same access to
secondary school students" as is provided to colleges and employers.

So although the Garfield P.T.S.A. voted last month to ban military
recruiters from the school and its 1,600 students, the Seattle school
district could not sign on to the idea without losing at least $15
million in federal education funds.

"The parents have chosen to take a stand, but we still have to comply
with No Child Left Behind," said Peter Daniels, communications director
for the district. In Whittier, a city of 85,000 10 miles southeast of
East Los Angeles, about a dozen families last September accused the
district of failing to properly advise parents that they had the right
to deny recruiters access to their children's personal information.

Mr. Terrazas, 51, the father of a Whittier High School junior, said the
notification was buried among other documents in a preregistration
packet sent out last summer.

"It didn't say that the military has access to students' information,"
he said. "It just said to write a letter if you didn't want your kid
listed in a public directory."

A few years ago, after Sept. 11, the issue might not have gotten Mr.
Terrazas's attention. His father served in World War II, his brother in
Vietnam, and he said that he had always supported having a strong
military able to defend the country.

But after the war in Iraq yielded no weapons of mass destruction, and as
the death toll has mounted, he cannot reconcile the pride he feels at
seeing marines deliver aid after the tsunami in Asia with his concern
over the effort in Baghdad, he said.

"Because of the situation we're in now, I would not want my son to
serve," he said. "It's the policy that I'm against, not the military."

After Mr. Terrazas and several other parents expressed their concern
about the school's role in recruitment, the district drafted a new
policy. On May 23, it introduced a proposed opt-out form for the
district's 14,000 students.

The form, said Ron Carruth, Whittier's assistant superintendent,
includes an explanation of the law, and boxes that parents can check to
indicate they do not want information on their child released to either
the military, colleges, vocational schools or other sources of
recruitment. Mr. Carruth said that next year the district would also
prohibit all recruiters from appearing in classrooms, and keep the
military ones from bringing equipment like Humvees onto school grounds,
a commonly used recruitment tool.

He said that some of the information from the 11-by-17-inch poster that
Mr. Terrazas sought to post, including how to verify recruiters' claims
about financial benefits, will be part of a pamphlet created by the
school for students.

And at least a dozen other districts in the area, Mr. Carruth added, up
from three in November, are considering similar plans.

Unlike Mr. Terrazas, Ms. Rogers, 37, of High Falls in the upper Hudson
Valley, had not thought much about the war before she began speaking out
in her school district. She had been "politically apathetic," she said.
She did not know about No Child Left Behind's reporting requirements,
nor did she opt out.

When her son, Jonah, said he was thinking of sitting out a gym class
that was to be led by National Guard recruiters, Ms. Rogers, who works
part time as a clerk at the local motor vehicles office and receives
public assistance, said she told him not to be "a rebel without a
cause."

"In this world," she recalled telling him, "we need a strong military."

But then she heard from her son that the class was mandatory, and that
recruiters were handing out free T-shirts and key chains - "Like, 'Hey,
let's join the military. It's fun,' " she said.

First she called the Rondout Valley High School to complain about the
"false advertising," she said, then her congressman.

On May 24, at the first school board meeting since the gym class, she
read aloud from a recruiting handbook that advised recruiters on ways to
gain maximum access to schools, including offering doughnuts. A high
school senior, Katie Coalla, 18, stood up at one point and tearfully
defended the recruiters, receiving applause from the crowd of about 70,
but Ms. Rogers persisted.

"Pulling in this need for heartstrings patriotic support is clouding the
issue," she said. "The point is not whether I support the troops. It's
about whether a well-organized propaganda machine should be targeted at
children and enforced by the schools."

----------------

Laura Cummins, in Accord, N.Y., contributed reporting for this article.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager