San Francisco's anti-war activists know that they can't legitimately seek to ban military recruiters from public school campuses: to do so would expose those schools to loss of crucial federal funds. What they are doing instead: introducing a ballot initiative that would declare the city of San Francisco to be against military recruitment on campus. Entitled "College Not Combat," the bill would, in the words of an AP report, "encourage city officials and university administrators to exclude recruiters, even if that meant forsaking government dollars. It also would urge them to create scholarships and training programs to reduce the military's appeal to young adults." In other words, the bill would press school officials to ban military recruiters on their own recognizance, and to accept the potential financial consequences thereof; a means of exerting partisan pressure in the name of promoting civic awareness, the bill also, if the AP report is accurate, would press schools not to educate students comprehensively about the military, so that they can make informed, independent decisions about their own future career paths, but to dissuade students categorically from considering the military by presenting them with ideologically loaded "guidance":

"We do not see George Bush's daughters signing up. It is poor and working-class people who need a job and education at the same time billions are being spent on this war," said Ragina Johnson of the International Socialist Organization.

The initiative is part of a nationwide movement against the Pentagon's recruiting efforts and its exclusion of openly gay prospects. The United States Supreme Court agreed last month to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that law schools could not be stripped of their federal funds for refusing to treat military employers as they would other employers.

Antiwar activists have also singled out a provision of the federal No Child Left Behind Act that requires school districts to provide military recruiters access to student career centers and to the same student contact information available to college or job recruiters. For a decade, the San Francisco Unified School District banned military recruiters from its high schools, a stand it was forced to abandon after Congress approved No Child Left Behind in 2001.

Absent the core issues involved -- IMHO, this is a federal v. state issue. Like medical MJ. I'm sure, there are folks in the red states that would like to stop paying for HHS. But if we started down that road, we'd wind up with 50 separate states.

1)The US action in Afghanistan very probably prevented some additional large-scale terrorist attacks in the U.S. It is quite possible that it prevented an attack in San Francisco. SF is undercutting an institution that protects them. There is, of course, no way to selectively withdraw that protection from SF, so what we have here is the potential for a classic "free rider" problem.

2)If SF gets away with this, what next? Will they ban recruiters from aerospace companies and the FAA on the grounds that some leftiest think air travel is "unenvironmental?" How about auto companies and oil companies?

3)Lefties demand that the Federal Government provide funding to the institutions that they (the lefties) run (such as the public schools), with no strings attached. It would be extremely irresponsible, however, to send large amounts of $ to an institution with no oversight or performance standards, and I don't think this kind of blank check is going to happen.

The "logic" employed by the socialist above -- "We don't see George Bush's daughter's enlisting!" -- is so dumb and tired that I can hardly believe that it's still being used in an attempt at serious debate. Does a person have to actually participate in something they approve of? Do I have to sign up to be a police officer in order to be in favor of police protection in my city? Do I have to sign up for the Peace Corps in order to be in favor of the Peace Corps? Johnson's assertion that only poor people are enlisting in the military is so far off the mark that I don't see how she can expect herself to be taken seriously.

My dad came from a single-parent household of 12 kids (!!) and the only way he could afford to go to college was to enlist in the Air Force. The Air Force gave him invaluable training as a radar technician and helped him make it through an electrical engineering degree after his stint, which he then used to get a job at NASA where he helped designed the guidance control system for the Apollo spacecraft. So I think there are some facts out there about the benefits of military enlistment that people like Ragina Johnson are conveniently ignoring.

"College not combat", my foot.

On the other hand -- if conservatives can use this issue to leverage liberals onto the bandwagon of completely repealing NCLB, I'd be willing to allow stupidty like this to go on for a little while.

As someone who finagled the SSS into copying his CO statement at the time as part of draft registration in the 1980s, I think it's a poor idea to suppress the presence of recruiters in school; more speech is best cure for speech you disagree with, for those opposed to recruiters' message. Peace Corps and VISTA recruiters and representatives of the CCCO can be side-by-side with military recruiters. More politically astute in any case is to make sure that there are clear alternative perspectives rather than censoring.

"We do not see George Bush's daughters signing up."

But, of course, they're bound to say something contradictory yet equally asinine about children of politicians who DO join up, like Lt. Teddy Pataki, USMC.

Dear Mr. Foster,

"Lefties" is a term that one uses when one has an agenda to push, and not a term one uses when one has an argument that one is trying to persuade others is correct.

"More argument, less dogma and faulty logic"; this should be the new blogosphere motto.

BR

BR...not sure I understand your point. How would you suggest that one refer in a concise manner to the class of people I am talking about? "Liberals" seems a bit inappropriate, given the difference between their beliefs and those of either classical liberals or New Deal liberals. I guess one could call them "progressives," which is typically what they call themselves, but this would be a mockery of the term given the prevalence of reactionary attitudes among this group.

BTW, how is "having an agenda to push" inconsistent with "trying to persuade others?" Isn't that how one normally pushes an agenda--by persuading people that it is correct and desirable?

This strikes me as similar to "diversity opportunities" that exclude whites. Or "multi-faith gatherings" that exclude Christianity. Or "Christian" gatherings that exclude Catholics. Or "science" courses the exclude evolutionary theories on the basis of a teacher's disagreement.

The only way to present students with the way to a future of their choosing, to their benefit, is to give them ALL the options and guide them through the THOUGHT PROCESS, not the action itself. Unfortunately, some people would rather legislate our thinking.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the US doesn't say "San Francisco. What do you expect?" and let them go off on their own way.....

I'm baffled by the strident opposition to school systems giving contact information to military recruiters, because it sure as heck didn't begin with NCLB. During the late '80s, it was common knowledge in my suburban New Jersey town that our high school provided names and phone numbers to the local Army recruiter. The sarge called me several times, and several times I politely told him no. Even in a high school with an active Air Force Jr. ROTC program where uniforms were commonplace and several teachers were veterans, it still wasn't difficult to decline the sarge's pitch. In fact, the overwhelming majority of my graduating class of 500 kids did not enlist. What are people worried about: Jedi mind tricks? From a couple of soldiers behind a table who hear "no" far, far, far more often than they hear "yes"? Only in the Bizarro World of the college campus could banning the military be seen not only as desirable, but also feasible.

...and, for what it's worth, I hardly think it's impolitic for David to refer to "leftists" when one of the organizations cited in the AP story is the International Socialist Organization!

One would think that free-sex and gay positive San Francisco folks would want people to join the military - so as to keep the Jihadis from ending their lifestyles (along with their lives).

Their actions are certainly counter-productive (Sherman Dorn's suggestions are excellent), but I doubt very much they'd be quite so strident or be getting any traction if Bush had stuck to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, rather than invading Iraq.

Michael...actually, I think these attitudes predate the war in Iraq. See below for an analysis of some of the psychological motivations:

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_photoncourier_archive.html#108958454702065377

Guidance, what guidance?

The California Department of Education did a study in 2003 called Pupil, Personnel Ratios, Services and Programs. Its results?

California has one of the highest student to counselor ratios in the nation. The statewide average was 954:1, while the ratio of the surveyed districts was 877:1. This discrepancy is due to the fact that the 306 districts in the state providing no support services were not included in the sample.

http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling/PDFs/Research_Brief_2-4.pdf

These kids aren't getting advice about getting to college or joining the military.

Gwen - Given the quality of the 'counseling' at the high school I attended, the less contact with the students the better for the students.

KRM,
I had the same experience as you in high school. My "counselors" were those who were just about to retire and who didn't want to(or couldn't) teach standard classes any more.

That being said, there is a lot of very good work being done by guidance counselors elsewhere in the country. Take a look at North Dakota, Iowa or Florida to see how much they value good guidance counselling.

I understand your point. How would you suggest that one refer in a concise manner to the class of people I am talking about? "Liberals" seems a bit inappropriate, given the difference between their beliefs and those of either classical liberals or New Deal liberals. I guess one could call them "progressives," which is typically what they call themselves, but this would be a mockery of the term given the prevalence of reactionary attitudes among this group.