An article published by Christian Science Monitor,[
Christian Science Monitor Article] and distributed by today's Military.com,[
Military.com Article] newsletter, as well as an article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, [
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Article] describe how a Seattle high school's Parent-Teacher-Student Association (PTSA) adopted a resolution [
Text found here] to bar military recruiters from campus. The following is taken from a press release written by the PTSA.
"The resolution states, in part, 'There are many reasons why Garfield parents, teachers and students might object to military recruiting on campus. Not all of us agree on every issue. Whether it is because of a desire to protect young students from the life-and-death decision that military service presents, objection to the current war in Iraq, fear that recruiters may not present a realistic picture of military life or disagreement with policies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we do agree that public schools are not a place for military recruiters.'”
This all should be prefaced with the understanding that
"Garfield’s PTSA voted to oppose an invasion of Iraq in the fall of 2002, under the belief that the war would be a threat both to the well-being of students who may be called to fight in it, as well as a threat to the funding security of public education."
That being said I will address the 2002 resolution first. While I admire their tenacity, their pursuit of their mission to “To promote the welfare of children and youth in the schools" is overstepped by the opposition of other governmental decisions outside of the purview of education. If the members of the Garfield PTSA wish to lobby on a military issue, I would encourage them to do so, but do not disguise it as an issue with DIRECT implications on the children and youth of schools. The PTSA concern of the war being a "threat both to the well-being of students who may be called to fight in it" excedes their mission of "promoting the welfare of children and youth" as any students called to fight in a war would either be adults who had signed a contract voluntarily or a 17.5 year old who has volunteered with parental consent.
Opposition to the war on an economic basis (the other reason) is similarly misguided as it assumes that the legislative branch responsible for the designation of funds is incorrect, improper or excessive in appropriating money to the military rather than education. Such an assumption is incorrect as it must assume that those that oppose have either better information, a better comprehension of fiscal policy or a better budgetary understanding than the United States Congress. It also creates a dichotic argument that proves false, between the federal government responsible for decisions of war and the state government primarily responsible for funding education
Now that the first resolution's ideas have been dealt with I shall move on to the second resolution. Beginning with the first claim, that the "desire to protect young students from the life-and-death decision that military service presents," the PTSA continues its lack of appreciation of the voluntary decisions of those students. Just by stating that the students need to be protected from a decision shows a marked disdain for the development of individual responsibility among their students. Shouldn't those eligible for military service, that is 18 year old adults or 17.5 year olds with parental consent, who have legal responsibility for their actions, be encouraged and supported in making important and difficult decisions, rather than protected from such decisions? These students will have to make such decisions eventually and the PTSA will not be there for the rest of their adult lives, "protecting" them.
As far as the decision to join the military being a "life-and-death decision," getting into your car to drive to the supermarket would have to be considered a "life-and-death decision" as more people die in car accidents daily proportionally than U.S. troops in Iraq.
Secondly, objections to the war are a citizens right, but should not translate into a objections to the troops or an individuals opportunities to succeed as soldiers in the military. Further, the objections to the war of the members of the PTSA should not be projected onto the possibilities of an entire student body. The opportunity to voice said objections could take place through democratic processes, not through inflammatory actions that inappropriately affect students who do not share those objections.
Third, while it is unethical for military recruiters to present an inaccurate picture of military life, the idea that an "accurate" picture is possible to illustrate would be false. An attempt to relate anything but a recruiters own experience should be taken with a grain of salt. "
Caveat emptor" and all. There is a reason that anyone with military experience would tell you to read EVERYTHING you sign. Not because any individual is trying to coerce or co-opt you, but because it is the responsible thing to do and "I didn't know" is not an acceptable answer.
Finally, the issue of equal opportunity and the military's policy on homosexuality is government policy. Such policy should not have adverse effects on other branches of government, any branch of government, education or otherwise. This is not a statement in support or against the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but rather an understanding that certain peoples choices and lifestyles may adversely effect their employment options. For example, someone's choice to be a vegan would make the prospect of working for a butcher or a burger joint rather uncomfortable. This does not preclude vegans from working in those establishments and any harassment of an employee on basis of this status should not be allowed. But one does not punish a butcher for violating equal opportunity because the work environment would be uncomfortable. So while it would be uncomfortable for a homosexual to be in the military, because of the unacceptability of manifesting that behavior, the military should not be punished for violating equal opportunity employment practices.
That said, there should be a differentiation between the hiring practice of a civilian institution that discriminates on a philosophical basis and the military which maintains that inclusion of gays would be detrimental to moral and unit cohesion. The military is making no teleological distinction of gays, but simply is acknowledging what it perceives will be a behavior that is detrimental to the concept of being a soldier in a unit.
Finally, the PTSA has actual influence on the administration of school policy and thus has no real decision making capacity. It does not actually speak for the voice of any of the member groups in its entirety. However, this episode demonstrates an increasingly common view that are contrairy to an all voluntary force by either "protecting" individuals from making their own voluntary decisions, imposing views that are not representative on unwilling or unknowing groups of people, or removing an individuals responsibility for a decision by claiming the decision was un- or misinformed. It is unfortunate that it seems as people today cannot be allowed to make their own voluntary, self-informed and researched decisions and take full responsibility for the consequences for those decisions.
