I don’t know that many people are aware of this (I certainly wasn’t), but the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has a proviso allowing - no, demanding - that military recruiters have access to high school students’ contact information.

Here is a portion of the text of the NCLB section (sorry, I forgot to save the link):




In these sources, recruiters claim that young, prospective enlistee’s fears of being sent to Iraq are mostly unfounded, and yet, “old” soldiers are being called back for Iraq regardless of age, physical ability, or time since last service. On 60 Minutes last night, they did a story on that subject. Some of the callbacks: A 4’ 8” tall, 55-year old woman who last served in the 60’s, a 31-year old mom with two kids under the age of 2, an undercover drug cop, and a 47-year old man who was disabled. Of these, some were commissioned officers who somehow neglected to formally resign their commission, and the military is using this and other tactics as loopholes to round up people who have completed their active and reserve service obligations!

Personally, I find these tactics sleazy, slimy and outrageous. Bush may well have stated that there will be no draft, but this is a sneaky-snaky way of getting around one, imo!

Some questions:

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment?

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not?

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation?

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment?

NCLB wasn't geared toward funding these type's of schools, they just happen to need the money more.

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not?


I dont believe the release of anyone's information to any group is appropiate without the individuals consent (short of law enforcement). Given certian schools animosity toward recruiter's I dont blame them for slipping it into the financing deal though.

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation?

I didnt know they could pull soldier's out of retirement. Ive only read stories about the military extending contracts. This issue is overblown, every branch hit their recruitment goals except for the (Army I think) reserve by 5,000 people. They increased the incentive to re-enlist to $10,000 which has been effective for re-enlistments so I dont see this "problem" re-occuring. The Navy and Air Force are "over-manned" last I heard.

I could be wrong, im not sure what 60 minutes is talking about.

Nevermind :



They are not retired if they are still in the ready reserve. In fact their contract stated they could be called up at anytime.... they are still part of the "volunteer military".



Tough, you signed the contract, you got the money, and now they have to fulfill those terms.

Here's a comment from the 50 yr. old.


Somehow I doubt she will be given a combat role.

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment? No. They are "targeting" groups which constitute their base. The military recruits and trains, educates and places young people in positions of responsibility which they would never receive at a similar age/experience level in the private sector. This is an entirely voluntary, and the military only accepts adults. How this is "unfair"? Please explain.

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not? Parents can object in writing, and be "spared" the sales pitch to their youngsters. When I was in highschool, I received solicitation from colleges around the country. Somehow, they received my information without my consent, AND without any monetary compensation to my highschool. The only difference that I see is that the federal government offers compensation for their sales pitch. Yes, it's appropriate...again, the parents can opt out if this offends them.

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation? Regardless of physical capability? Are they rounding up quadriplegics? Pease, Daffygrl.

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment?

I remember reading about this when it happened, and being disturbed by it. It serves as an interesting reminder that in many ways this country is just like every other nation in history - rich people make wars, and poor people fight them. This is as true of us as it is of our so-called enemies.

Is it unfair? Sure. The world is an unfair place. Bush seems willing to spell this out a bit more baldly than his predecessors.

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not?

Certainly it is inappropriate. Why? My understanding is that the USSC has indicated on several occasions that our citizens' rights do not end at the door of the school.

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation?

Perhaps we are caught between a rock and a hard place here. On the one hand, logic (and military experts) tells us that a volunteer army is better, and on the other hand, is a volunteer army going to be sufficient to deal out the militaristic foreign policy of Mr. Bush? PR likely dictates maintaining the rhetoric of the volunteer army, while pragmatism (within the context of the current administration, anyway) dictates we need more meat on the ground.

Please backatcha, Mrs. P, you consider a guy who can't run if the enemy if firing on him fit for battle? A 55-year old (itty-bitty) woman? An overweight 30-something new mom? There are other disabilities that make it tough on a person to engage in warfare that are still somewhat less than quadriplegy.

And yes, parents can object to NCLB's dirty little secret, if they know about it, which I'm confident in positing that most don't.

Hmm, no, I guess there's nothing unfair about targeting poor minority kids for military service. I must be deluded.

Vampiel, I guess you missed the example of the guy who did retire, and did resign his commission, and is being called up anyway. Do you think he's the only one in that situation?

And NCLB is:

This was a pretty surprising statistic, surprising enough that I checked it out. Guess what? Wrong.....

According to CNN, from DoD statistics, as of 6Nov, the breakdown of the ethnicity of the Americans killed in Iraq is as follows.......

White - 792
Hispanic - 137
Black - 140
Asian - 22
Other - 23
Unknown - 13

Just correcting the record here. I have little else to say on this topic other than that serving in the US Military is an honorable thing to do regardless of one's race or financial standing. I see absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever with presenting graduating High School students with the opportunity to join the military.

Edited to add.....

The quote from DaffyGrl is not her quote, but rather one from a website called "Teaching Virtues". Perhaps this website should adopt the virtue of telling the truth.

I stand corrected however this is nothing new. If you take a look at the Solomon Amendment which states :



Which BTW was just repealed by a federal appeals court.



That is an interesting case, but if he did his time the military wont be able to pull him back into service. Of course I dont think he is the only one in that situation but I also think people who signed civilian contracts have disputes as well. This isn't limited to the military.

I'd simply like to offer an alternate outlook on NCLB. We have observed through countless research studies that children of various ethnicities, and lower socioeconomic status tend to score lower on standardised tests. NCLB effectively attaches federal funding to scores on standardised tests. Knowing that kids in white, affluent districts tend to score higher on standardized tests....NCLB effectively institutes Bush's core econimic plan: The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

I've studied research done by grad students at TX State University San Marcos and found this to be an accurate assessment. I've also found that the NCLB legislation effectively "dumbs down" teachers pedagogy in order to "teach the test" as opposed to what I consider to be more vital educational goals. Essentially, the government is manipulating education to prevent the teaching of the more democratic skills in favor of a standardized curriculum that students are expected to regurgitate. There is little room for individuality or expression within these confines. Teachers are becoming less and less inspired as they are forced to conform to the corporate world of standardized tests.


In response to the other question: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6661835/

If our military is "volunteer" why are soldiers suing the government over forced extended enlistment???

Antny

I dont deny that many people join the military because of financial incentives but you are misrepresenting the all volunteer military. The military is not only based on financial incentives but many join because they believe in the cause itself. For many the financial incentives are only part of the algorithm. Micheal Jordans brother recently volunteered to goto Iraq. Yes a certian percentage of people join because of the incentives, but for many it's only a perk. Im taking the MEPS test shortly (which I have passed before) and am volunteering to be shipped to Iraq. It's not due to financial reasons.



A third of the IRR did not show up. So 2/3rds wanted to come. 75% of the military supports Bush. 75% of the military supports the cause, and so do I. Im not pursuing the military simply because they will add $8,000 to my finances, I know many ways with much less risk to aquire that cash. For me and everyone I know in the military it was never about the money though they do exist but are few and far between.

I think it comes down to bad management. Think of how big iraq is and the population, then also factor into forces that have to be elsewhere. If you look into a military phonebook, the DOD and all of its branches are all over the globe. Then you have two major conflicts in the mideast and so on. The DOD and so on was evaluating and evolving its force capabilities to meet this new threat(terrorism, etc..), but such also was not completed when iraq kicked off. This bad management has lead to what i think of as many issues within the whole WOT(is iraq part of it?). Even when you factor in the total or absolute amount of personal at the DOD's disposal does it meet the requirements, and also are these people proper for whatever the DOD decides to do with them. You have various backdoor drafts being employed and on the bottom scale of it all, i cant agree with giving students to recruiters. Recruiters are known to be skilled with the lie, thats about the truth on them.

The army of any nation is never made up of its upper class or so on historically, that is nothing new. In world war 2 and vietnam minorities in the army where giving various degraded situations to perform in that the majority counterparts never had to deal with. That is nothing new in various nations either, or in history for the most part.

This then leads me to despise all the folks that support war but would not touch it with a ten foot pole, disgusting i might add. I joined the army under clinton and gore was going to win in my mind, this did not come to light thanks to corruption possibly and various parts of my government. So now my life as in terms of the national guard is for whatever the DOD sees fit still, which gave me a 545 day contract in support of OIF. I am not in danger really, and lucky for the most part, more so i am not agreeing with iraq. This just leads me more down the path of disliking chickenhawks and so on overall. I have also been able to see various reserve personal called up come into my unit and so on already. They are of the army job for washing clothes and now get to do something they have no real training for, and or are put in danger which is amplified for them giving their circumstance. For the most part we have to watch over them and give them simple pointers, and many cant even remember how to tell a tracer round from a normal ball round, or work an m-16 fully. So that is sick overall and lame, and again just goes back to my distain for the chickenhawks.

I think if you can agree with letting the military do whatever it wants to the civilian populous and so on, from young to old, you should not be saying things like you are a patriot or so on, that would be a lie really. The forces of america should remain all volunteer for various reasons, not forces of manipulation.

QUOTE(Vampiel @ Dec 7 2004, 04:21 AM)

QUOTE

I remember reading about this when it happened, and being disturbed by it. It serves as an interesting reminder that in many ways this country is just like every other nation in history - rich people make wars, and poor people fight them. This is as true of us as it is of our so-called enemies.

Is it unfair? Sure. The world is an unfair place. Bush seems willing to spell this out a bit more baldly than his predecessors.

I dont deny that many people join the military because of financial incentives but you are misrepresenting the all volunteer military.

I don't believe he was talking about the incentives to join the military, but the "market" that the recruiters tend to focus on -- the poor.


When I first heard about this inclusion, I was furious, but now that I actually read the provision, I'm not so much. It does have an opt out clause, and lays the responsibility on the schools to inform parents of this provision and their right to refuse to have their child's information made available to recruiters. If parents don't want their children's information getting into the hands of the military then they opt out. If they don't know about it, the schools need to be taken to task for that.

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment?

Nope. I attended a school in Fullerton, California and one in San Bernardino, California. Fullerton is in Orange County, where (as any Cali will tell you) a lot of money is. They had recruiters and an Army JROTC program. In San Bernardino, (where the money is not) we didn't even have that. Just recruiters who walked around and talked to some folks. So, no. I don't think it's based on economic background.

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not? Lol...if I can pull names off a telemarketing list without consent, then they can. Oh, and you guys seem to forget that, in the end, it's the student in question that decides whether or not to enlist. Being bombarded by recruiter's telephone calls won't change that.

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation?

Well, politicians and brass have debated what the appropriate force level for this should have been since before it even started. A volunteer force is adequate in that it provides willing, motivated individuals that choose to enlist. Not making recrutiment quotas is not as bad as spending 40K a head to train a soldier for an intel MOS and have them dropout by the bushels.

Exactly. Every day I receive no less than five soliciting phone calls and my mail box is filled with junk mail advertisements and promotional offers. I placed my name on the national don't call registry, but somehow a judge determined that a company's right to free speech extends through the phone lines into my home. I have asked them to stop calling, and they keep calling. I have called the phone company, and they basically said there is nothing they can do (except caller-ID, which I now have).

Quarkhead said,"My understanding is that the USSC has indicated on several occasions that our citizens' rights do not end at the door of the school."

What rights are those, and can I have them? If every company that calls and writes to me can receive my name, number, and address without my permission, why can't military recruiters? Just say no, and they likely won't ask you again (unlike private companies and other organizations, which will harass you mercilessly). Or, you can opt out and write a letter so they won't ask you (unlike companies and other organizations, which are permitted to continue to call, under the guise of free speech, as often as they wish).

It seems I generated a lot of snarky remarks by posing the questions I did. A common theme seems to be "well, heck, telemarketers can hassle the heck out of you, why not recruiters?" There seems to be one fact missing from this defense...these are MINOR children being targeted. Telemarketers do not target children (tho they may do so indirectly through parents). Maybe because there are many military/miltary family members who post here, they see it as a "so what" deal. Parents are not being made aware that their child can be contacted by a military recruiter without their knowledge; that, imo, is wrong. Minor children's contact information should not be so readily available. This information is not even made available to college recruiters; why should it be available to the military?

Children are easily influenced and manipulated. It is my belief that manipulating a child (ESPECIALLY without the knowledge of the parent) is wrong. Period.

Parents are not made aware of the opt-out clause. It is up to them to somehow divine that it exists, buried in the fine print somewhere.

Daffygrl, minors are not permitted to join the military. I don't share your view that an eighteen year old cannot make this decision. You say this information is unavailable to college recruiters? I think you're wrong there, unless things have changed since I was in highschool (a possibility). I received solicitation from colleges around the country. Maybe some senior/first year university student posters could weigh in here.



Really? I thought this law required an 'opt out' notification process, whereby parents are notified and have an opportunity to request the information not be disclosed. You say this information is available only through the process of divination? How do you know? Somehow, even I have this information and I have no teenaged student.

I'm in college now, and Mrs. Pigpen is correct, I received numerous solicitations from colleges from which I did not actively seek information. I also took the ASVAB (everyone in my graduating class had to), and I also had recruiters from the military calling me. This did not bother me, I just said no. I also agree with Mrs. Pigpen, while the recruiters may talk to you when you are 17 or so, you cannot join until you are 18 and a legal adult.

And after six years of college (undergrad and grad school), I will be entering the Army in May. I am also 5'1" and resent the comment about the "itty bitty" woman not being capable of serving (and being disabled... being short is not a disability last time I checked) (sorry Daffygrl). I am just as capable of serving my country, even being a little height deficient, as anyone else. And last time I checked, there are plenty of 55 year-olds in the military. Oh, and being overweight is (usually) a correctable problem.

In answer to some of the many questions posed:


This guy posted a list of the email runaround he got here when trying to find out what his local high school’s policy about NCLB and military recruitment was.

Regarding students' rights - they do have them - just like regular American citizens! The ACLU has 287 items on the subject at their website.

Military Recruiting Law Puts Burden on Parents

Here’s the ACLU Letter to several NY schools on the subject.

The letter starts with:
So it would seem there are some abuses of the NCLB provisions by the military. I guess federally-mandated access isn't always adequate.

And college recruitment is a far cry from military recruitment. No one is going to throw you in jail for leaving college, chances are no one will shoot at you, and you still retain your "ownership" rights to your own mind and body.

Edited to add: Pallas Athena, I never said being short was a disability. Please read the original post - I was referring to another person (a man). And the 4'8" woman is 55. Just FYI.

I suppose none of you would have a problem with the Hare Krishna's having this same access to student records, and the same opportunities to 'enlist' kids at high schools? How about the Moonies? If we don't let Coca Cola come in and get the kids' records from the school, why should we let the Army? People are making comparisons to company lists, but I don't see it. We're talking about schools having to give their information to the military. This does not happen with companies, as far as I know. We're not talking about gleaning names and addresses from public databanks. We're talking about schools being required to release student records to the military, with recruitment in mind.

So are schools doing the same thing to Coca Cola? I doubt it. And even if they are, should they be? Does the fact that companies can get all this information so easily make it OK to include the military, particularly in a piece of federal legislation? Does that automatically excuse this bill from criticism? I don't understand that logic.

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment?
Well, they are targeting, as others have conceded ... and as they note, whether this is "unfair" is not an easy call.

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not?
Under the law, things can be done which have inappropriate results, yet be legal. When I was in the military, married people were allowed to live off-base, while singles languished in the on-base barracks. Marrieds got extra money, to rent this nice housing. When we went to sea, marrieds got an extra 'separation' allowance while single people were evidently not inconvenienced or stressed by the isolated duty. Weird ... but by all accounts, legal.

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation?
Because we are biting off a bit more than we can chew?

Students as 'objects'. There is a broad trend in America, to view young people in schools ... as though they aren't there, or weren't people, or both. The situation is similar to 'men of old' talking about women, discussing their fate between themselves, while ignoring the women themselves - even talking right through them.

Young people in schools are people. There is too much different between older adolescents in high schools, and pre-pubescents in elementary grades, to credibly lump them together as a class. Yet that is the reality. It seems defective.

Military desperation. Few institutions are as acutely aware of the importance of public image, as is the military. Haunting the halls of schools 'stalking' kids, becoming involved in national lawsuits to force access to campus populations, aggressively straining the law code to get their way ... these are all warning signs that the military is under extreme duress. They normally will avoid such controversial situations like the plague.

Declining reputation. Continuing controversy about military recruitment practices, about adversarial retention & recall policies, and over the use of certain personnel categories well outside their training or mission profile, will progressively deteriorate the reputation of the military. They, above all others, know better.

Look for mounting problems with our volunteer military.

First let me say this, those who are saying that you have to be 18 to enlist in the military are wrong. At 17 with your parent's consent and if you are a senior in high school you can join any branch of service in what is known as the Delayed Entry Program or DEP. (pronounced like Johnny Depp) However, you can not join the military in the DEP program (I know it's redundant, but this is how it is used) without the parent's consent if the kid is under 18.
Just in case some one thinks to make a certain argument, the DEP program is not designed to wait to a kid is 18, because this is irrelevant. If a kids 18 Birthday is in october and the kid graduates in May that kid can be in boot camp in June before he turns 18. Not only that when a kid "DEPs in" he is in the military. Some people are aware of this, but many are not. When you join the military you sign up for 8, not 4, years of service. Usually, the contract is 4 years active/reserve, then four years inactive reserve. The amount of time you serve in the DEP goes toward your inactive reserve time. I will give my service as an example. I DEP'd in when I was 17 and stayed for about a little less than a year. I served a little more than 7 years, before getting out. So when my buddies would joke that Bush could still get me for a year I would go, nope I had a year of DEP time... Have fun in the sandbox...lol You see it added to 8, I was done my commitment.

Since NCLB is geared toward funding schools in poor, rural, and/or minority areas, is the military unfairly targeting these groups for recruitment?
Might as well ask if it is "fair" to have poor people in the world. The military targets the poor, regardless of the provision added to the NCLB bill. All the provision does is makes it easier to get in the schools to get at the kids. Is it sly, yes, but do we really expect anything less?

I've said it before, I'll say it again our military is not a volunteer organization. People who believe it is are just asking the question "Is anyone holding a gun to someone's head and making them join?" Therefore it must be a volunteer force. Wrong. If the military was a volunteer force, you wouldn't need recruiters, you'd just need administrative personnel to do paperwork from the streams of people that come in to the office to join... O.K I take it back... the Air Force is a volunteer force...lol. Pat Tillman is a perfect example of a volunteer to me. Not cause of his wealth, but just the pure desire to join the service for the service.

Anyways, though I acknowledge the fact we are not mandated to join, when is the next time you "volunteer"?? Do you volunteer to go to Iraq?? I don't think so!!! As everyone who has been in the military and some of you who have not know, you have become property of the government...literally!! Maybe for the 5 seconds it takes you to sign your name, it is volunteer. But after that you are under contract. But before any of this can happen you need to fill the ranks.

Is the release of high school students’ personal information an appropriate item to be written into federal education legislation (e.g., NCLB)? Why, or why not?

Of course not, but 17,18, 19 are very impressionable years where there is bound to be a lot of ignorance, insecurity, and unsurety to exploit. How you going to go to college, where you gonna live, you wanna live under you mama, are you smart enough, are you good enough, will you be able to feed, clothe, and pay for a roof over your head?? I got the solution, talk your mama into signing this, come on in. Let me give you all of this...direction, pay, no worries about health costs, no worries about job security, free food, free roof over your head, some spending money in your pocket. It looks good, it sounds good. And to be fair, the military will make good on most of these promises. But a 17 year old or 18 for that matter cannot understand the price.
So why do we allow military recruiters in High School in the first place?? Because the military guarantees our country's wealth. So we need to keep its ranks filled. The military is sold to most people, in many ways. The recruiters are taught to sell. The poor are more likely to buy what they are selling, the young are more likely to buy what they are selling. That means to some it may seem completely to allow a provision to make the military's target group more accessible if it is getting financial assistance from the federal government.
I don't think it is appropriate, because the military is not a institute of higher learning, it is not an educational institute, and because it is a sly way to make schools more accessible to High Schools where they don't belong.

If our “volunteer” military is adequate, then why are retired soldiers being rounded up and sent to Iraq, regardless of physical capability or whether they have already completed their obligation?

Well, first I think these are rarities so I won't put too much weight on that. But, no doubt the military is hurting. John Kerry wasn't lying when he said here is a back door draft going on. People are getting hit with "stop loss"policies and being recalled. I do believe they will do their best to avoid the draft after the President's promise, so they will use other means, fair or not, to keep that promise.

A "kid" of 17 can break his word of honor with no consequence. To quote the Navy Directive (COMNAVCRUITCOMINST 1130.8D):
"Threatening Delayed Entry Program member[s] with possible disciplinary actions for failing to fulfill their contractual obligations is inconsistent with the concept of the All Volunteer Force (AVF)....[No member of the Delayed Enlistment Program should] be told that it is Navy policy to order or force an unwilling member to recruit training or to any other form of active or Reserve duty."

Frankly, I don't have much else to say on this. Daffy's point about "rights" afforded to students is pretty irrelevant in the face of the fact that home owners are afforded the same rights and still receive solicitation. Quarkhead's point about "Moonies and Hare Krishnas" is moot considering the separation of church and state. I certainly receive solicitation at my door from many Mormons...and I simply decline, politely.

When my husband accepted ROTC solicitation, he was 18 (a MENSA member, and minority at a university). He decided to devote nine years of his life (after college) towards the defense of this nation. He didn't do it for entirely altruistic reasons...he wanted to fly, but he wouldn't have done it for a religious cult like the Moonies . He's a patriotic person, and agreed to service to this nation.

Personally, I would not agree if my own sons come to me when they are 18 and say they want to enlist. But, that will be their decision as adults, and I will respect it. I won't cry that it's some government conspiracy plot through funding. I only wish that I had so much influence as a parent, now that they are only 6 and (almost) 3. The people who disagree with my husband's occupation and the solicitation of 17, 18 and 19 year olds are often the very same people who argue parental influence and control can overcome everything else (no decency laws, legal prostitution, ect).

OK, I shouldn't have picked religious groups, because that obviously distracted you from my point. How about the FBI? Should they have access to student information from high schools? My point is that I see no reason to tie this invasion of privacy by the military to school funding. To me it's like writing a bill that says, we'll give this money to schools, but they have to give their student records to the Department of Homeland Security.

It's piggy-backing legislation, and I don't care for it at all; furthermore, these little addendums, often buried in unrelated legislation can cause trouble later. A senator might vote against a bill because of sneaky addendums, and then later everyone will say, how could you vote against this! Of course the addendum will be forgotten. Look at the recent issue with Alabama trying to change the wording in their constitution - whether or not the addendum is good or bad, it's an end run around legislation.

I happen to think that this particular part of the NCLB bill is wrong, but even if it wasn't, I would want it out in the clear, its own bill.

I recognize that the military can be a decent ticket out of wrenching poverty for some people. I sure wish there was some other, nonviolent way to do that. Maybe federalize public education, and recruit kids into teaching programs, where as teachers they will get free housing, free medical care, and other benefits like the military. I can't help but be saddened by the idea that the only surefire way off the street for some folks involves carrying a gun.

But, back to the subject at hand, and to conclude: I think this is wrong, but even if I didn't I would be opposed to it being stuck onto an educational funding bill. Let it stand (or fall) on its own merits!

Mrs. Pigpen, my post about student rights was in response to your statement here:

I don’t believe anyone’s rights are irrelevant, and homeowner solicitation is hardly the same as military recruitment, anyway. Besides, there was enough concern about unwanted solicitations in people’s homes to create the national “Do Not Call” list. All remaining solicitations you may receive as a homeowner are from companies you already deal with. Are high school age kids’ lives somehow less important than an annoying call from the local paper/charity/credit card company?

The comparison of consenting adults’ rights not to receive advertising solicitation to the rights of children not to receive military dogma at school is comparing apples to oranges, and, well, irrelevant.

As Quarkhead points out, sticking this tawdry business in what is supposed to be an education funding bill is not right.

It really doesn't matter if the person is 17 , 18 or 19 thru 28 if they join the delayed entry program there won't be any consequence for breaking their word. But the statement you quoted (above) is very misleading. The reason why there is no consequence for breaking their word has nothing to do with age or the program, it is simply because consequences are never sought by the military. It kind of goes toward what Ted was saying..."Few institutions are as acutely aware of the importance of public image" That is exactly the way this is. A 17 year old signs the contract and gives a oath of service and just like anyone else he/she can be punished a charged under the UCMJ.



What you were quoting was more of a directive for recruiter, because they were doing this, they may still be doing this, but I doubt they do it outright. The point is "don't threaten the kids, because it makes us look bad... it might even be illegal." You may owe a bill it is illegal for a bill collector to tell you that the company will sue if you don't pay, however, this doesn't mean the company can't sue.



I'm not sure I'm getting what you are saying, but just mentioning prostitution made me think of something... Wouldn't you think it is a little disturbing if you had other companies soliciting for kids at high schools. I mean you could have like a "young teens sex website" send out representative and show all the benefits they offer, their tuition assistance program, all the money they could make. You know really get into their heads so that soon as they turn 18 they can jump right into the business. I mean, the most that would be asked of the soon to be adult would be to have sex with complete strangers, contrast that to killing strangers... doesn't seem that bad.

The point is it is ridiculous to give the military this easy access to the developing minds of children. If they see them in the mall and want to make an offer that's cool I guess. The military is much closer to a business platform than it is an educational platform. If they see a someone walking, I don't see anything wrong with them spitting some game and getting the digits of an 18 or older young adult. Hey that is how the system is set up. But why would you take a bill like No Child Left Behind, meant to help promote better education and throw on the fact that the schools have to give up their students information to recruiters?? Why?? unless you want the military to have more and easier access to kids.

There's a lot here, and I will go off-topic if I address much of it. Suffice it to say, Daffygrl, the do-not-call list is irrelevant, which is the reason I brought it up. Several federal judges blocked the list, claiming that it violated the companies' freedoms of speech. Solicitation is as bad as ever in spite of my prior registration on that list.

Next..I don't sympathize with Droop's "developing minds of children" argument, when it pertains to 18 year olds. I wish I had a dime for every time the "parent's responsibility" card was thrown out regarding numerous issues on this forum. "Don't like a breast during halftime (regardless of prior contractual obligation from the entertainers)? Too bad! Parents need to teach their children"..."Don't want condoms distributed at schools? Too bad, parents need to teach their children".."Don't want your daughter to think prostitution is a legitimate career choice if the option were legalized? Too bad, parents need to teach their children"...blah dee blah...

Daffygrl mentioned that every student who takes the SAT "consents" to releasing his/her personal data. I don't know anyone (as far as US students go) who has not taken the SAT at least one time. I guess nearly everyone has "consented" to the release of his/her personal data. Bottomline is, if parents don't want their children to enlist in the military, they can opt out of the sales pitch (this guarantees nothing, of course, as the offending "children" might enlist themselves without the sales pitch...all perfectly legal ). If they are too lazy and uninformed to do so, their wee little 18 year old "children" might listen to a military recruiter and enlist against their wishes.

The military does not target "the poor". The solomon act proves this. The government target's anyone that is eligable. That goes for voter registrations. Candidates call the homes of registered voters.

http://www.yalerotc.org/Solomon.html



I agree with quarkhead. No one should be subjected to give away their information to any establishment simply because your child attend's the local school. You shouldn't have to "opt-out" of anything you didn't "opt-in" to in the first place. So is it ok if every company in the US call's my home, only for me to have to "opt-out" of every single one of them?



If a salesperson knocks on your door and you let him in. When they sell you their product did you not voluntarily buy that product?

Come on Mrs P. I just seen your picture it looks like its only been 7 years since you were 18 , yet you don't remember the insecurities. The world is before you and you have no clue on what is about to happen. You are unsure, you are impressionable, you are growing into adulthood. But given you don't buy that a 18 yr old mind is developing stuff... let's just put it aside. What is this fascination you have with 18 yr olds?? The add on gives recruiters greater access to to students in High School. Last I checked 1st, 2nd 3rd...12th, yep, the average Senior is 17 years old!! This addition to the bill affects those younger than 18 for the most part, so how about some sympathy for the developing minds of that person.



Huh... are we defining targeting the same?? FUBU target black urban youth, FUBU will sell it clothes to a yuppie rich kid from Massachusetts. The programs and items that a recruiter uses most Gi Bill, Tuition Assistance, cash bonuses, ROTC Scholarships are greatly more needed by the poor and lower middle class that other wise couldn't afford them, than by "everyone." I'm not sure how the the Solomon Act shows that the military does not target based on class, but I am willing to try to understand.



You know what is a better way and more relevant way to ask that question If someone has to send a salesperson to you house to convince you to buy something, did you volunteer to buy it?? I don't think so. Like I said if you define volunteer, by "you are not physically forced" then I guess you can say most things are voluntary. I mean I get up and go to work on my own every day. Sometimes I don't want to, but no one holds a gun to my head. So does that make my work volunteer work?? If so doesn't the term "volunteer work" become redundant. For something to truly been done voluntarily there should not be carrots or sticks outside of the duty itself. This mean there is no expectation of consequences or rewards. When a ales man talks to you he is telling you about how bad you need this item and the consequences of not having it. A recruiter is no different, the military is no different. Now there are those that join the military for the sole reason of service, but this is by no means close to a majority. Most people have had the recruiter come sell them on why joining the service is the best chose for them through use of carrots and consequence.

The solomon act was passed for higher education schools with the same premise of NCLB that they had to provide military access to students. The military target's anyone who is eligable, it doesnt matter if they make a million dollars a day or fifty dollars a day.



Uhh, yes you did. The minute you let them into your home you are asking for a sale's pitch. If you dont want anything to do with it you simply tell them no. The military giving you information and you accepting it is called volunteering. Just because you are provided the information doesnt mean they are somehow taking away your free will. Volunteer i.e. voluntary actions.



You goto work of your own free will. No one is stopping you from not going to that job. Just because someone holds up a carrot and you eat it doesnt mean you did not decide to eat it of your own free will.



Prove it.



Consequence? What consequence?

This argument does not seem logical to me. You are playing on two different meanings to the word voluntary. The first "Done or undertaken of one's own free will: ex) a voluntary decision to leave the job." By this definition, any choice you make that has not been coerced is voluntary. This would include your job. In addition, the definition does not prohibit compensation or consideration of rewards. For example, you decide between two jobs, and you take into account the amount of money offered -- does the fact that the job you accepted offered more money make the decision to take that job INvoluntary? No, it doesn't -- it was a free decision. This definition is used in defining the current military as an "all volunteer force." Therefore using carrots does not negate the voluntary nature of the decision to join the military.

The quote above however, plays off the more colloquial definition of volunteer: "Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work." This definition is stressed since "volunteer work" - unpaid, uncompensated service, is used. Under this definition, the military is not "volunteer work" anymore than a job would be. However, this is not a correct argument, since there is a confusion between the two definitions. In this discussion, the first definition is the correct one to be used, since we are talking about decisions, not service. In addition, anyone who thinks everyone who does volunteer work out of the good of their own hearts is a little out-of-touch with the real picture. Even with "volunteer work" (using def. 2), is compensated in indirect and more hard to measure ways. For example, to build up my application for college, I did volunteer work and I continued doing volunteer work while in college to pad my scholarship applications (and it paid off too.) People also do volunteer work to make connections, get tax write-offs, etc. There are motivations behind volunteer work. Yes, some people do it because it makes them feel good -- but not everyone.

(note: definitions are from dictionary.com).

On the issue of age. Yes, recruiters talk to college seniors while they are still 17. As do college recruiters. The student still cannot join the military until they are 18 and legally an adult. Are 18 year-olds fully developed people? I don't think you're fully developed at any age. People learn and adapt throughout their lives (getting less flexible, but still capable of changing, just less likely). Do I think that 18 year-olds (or 17 year-olds for that matter) are capable of making the choice between joining the military and not joining? Yes. At 18 (and 17) people are capable of making choices. For those that think they can't, should we raise the age of legal adulthood? To what? How old is old enough to make an informed decision. 20, 25, 30? Yes, a 30 year-old has 10 years more experience than a 20 year old -- but a 20 year-old does have the ability to reason. Where should "adult" start in the legal sense? I personally think 18 is good enough. (it's gotta start sometime).

Do I like the fact that the lists are given to recruiters and the fact is not heavily advertised to parents? Not really. But, this is just contact information -- just because the recruiter has your name, doesn't mean you have to join. The decision is still a free one. I really think it is no worse than having high schools take everyone in the graduating class out to take the ASVAB -- a worse invasion of privacy in many ways because this is a higher level of information collection allowing a more specific targeting of students. I can still remember my high school told me I "had to take it." I really don't see how different this is to colleges selling the contact info for their students (to everyone under the sun -- the amount of junk mail I get is appalling), it only starts the process sooner. Is it right? Well, I don't really like it. Does it harm me? Not at all. I just throw the junk mail away, and when I was in high school I told the recruiters no. And I am one of those "needs assistance" people. I would not have been able to go to college if I hadn't scraped together enough scholarship money, loans and a part-time job. Did my economic status force me into choosing the military? No.

I do agree that the giving of the lists to recruiters should be common knowledge to parents, that the schools should make an honest effort to inform parents of the situation and give them ample opportunity to withdraw their child from the list.

Though the Solomon Act has no bearing on the topic, it keeps getting thrown out here as a defense of NCLB recruiting underage teens. So, let it be known that the Solomon Act may just be headed the way of the dodo:

Military recruiters, as has been pointed out by many posters on both sides of the argument, are first and foremost SALESMEN.

The DEP is particularly insidious. Sure, the recruiter tells the kid s/he can change her/his mind, but then the pressure comes to bear.

Uh-huh, no pressure there.

As for the argument that 17-18 year olds are full-fledged adults able to make good, wise decisions that will affect the next 10 years of their life, I have to laugh. Plus, high schools generally have kids all the way from 14 or 15 to 18 or 19. It’s not as if those younger kids aren’t noticing what’s going on, or that a recruiter would have a problem putting the “military bug” in that 14-year old's ear for the future.

I still think there is no excuse for paying for the military to put the full court press sales pitch on kids as part of education funding.

Thank goodness for sites like this: Do You Know Enough to Enlist? And there’s a good PowerPoint presentation here that highlights some of the practices used to entice kids into the military. Gotta love Dick Cheney: "the military is not a jobs training program...the goal of the military is to fight and win wars..." They oughta put that on the recruitment posters.

We probably ought to start discouraging sexual activity, then, eh? Babies and disease can ruin your life. Driving can be pretty dangerous, too. At the very least, they certainly shouldn't be able to vote if they are too young to make life decisions. Not sure what you're inferring about 14-16 year olds "knowing what's going on" and being influenced by those awful persons in uniform handing out pencils to the seniors. They'd better not look up at the sky, either, because they might be caught with the pilot bug and *gasp!* want to fly, or work as a mechanic, in the military. Parents should avoid airshows.

Military members know exactly why they are there. The fact is, the military is only as good as the people who make it up. So, rather than trying to discourage good people from entering the service, you should be glad that they do.

One more time, from the ACLU



According to this, either the student OR the parent can request the opt out, and their notification is required by law. It is the school's responsibility and culpability if they fail to do so.

Pallas Athena


Funny this is exactly what i think many others are doing.

Take what you did. You wrote two paragraphs of writing about involuntary and voluntary. Well, it isn't called an "all voluntary force" it is called an "all volunteer force" I'll get back to this...

Most things we do on our own, we do for some reason that is beneficial to us. Whether that be the simple joy of helping out. So how are we to differentiate volunteering from any thing else. Are we looking at it in Black and White, binary format. There is mandated and everything else volunteering.(notice I didn't say voluntary) Well what about words like persuade, compel, induce, proselyte, coax, where do they fit in with the word volunteer. They are not synonymous, yet some seem to argue that to be persuaded to do something and to volunteer to something is one in the same. Any action that I am persuaded or induce to do is certainly done voluntarily, but are you going to make a stretch of saying I volunteered to do it?? Just cause a task is taken without mandate does not mean a person volunteered for the task. A person for some reason or another could simply have chosen to accept the task. At some point we have to recognize the spirit of the word and its meanings. What i have seen so far is a connection of "Something is not forced, therefore it is voluntary, therefore you volunteered to do that something, regardless of circumstances" Can we take in account the ideas of persuasion?? Are there things in between being forced and volunteering??

If not, so be it, I think you are very wrong, but so be it. So say for the people who can not see that there is a grey area in between being forced and volunteering. Say I concede, which I don't , but let's for the sake of argument say that I do concede that everyone "Volunteers" to join the service. Calling it a All Volunteer Force is still absolutely, unequivocally WRONG!! Before one can be part of the force they must join the force, once they join the force, their obligation is mandated, not volunteer, not even voluntary. Ever hear of "stop loss?" Do people called for duty get a choice?? Can they say "Nah, I don't want to go to Iraq, you all have fun!"? Good Luck!

Vampiel


Again, this shows that the military accepts any one eligible, not whether it targets any one. The military institutes programs to address needs, these need are more likely poorer individuals. Take away the programs, what do you think will happen to recruitment. Don't think I am suggesting this is exclusive to America's military. As someone pointed out poor people fighting rich man's war is a concept as old as time.



I must have been talking about you in the paragraphs above and this sort of binary logic. If a sales man comes to my door I did not ask him to come to it, and if I listen I did not volunteer to do so, I just do it. I could say no, but maybe I don't want to feel bad for not even giving the person the opportunity. And if he convinces me to buy, well that's just what happened, he convinced me to buy. I did not volunteer. If I volunteered to buy the product he wouldn't have to give a sales pitch, he wouldn't have to convince me.



Oh... just carrots?? No sticks?? So on the days I don't go to work are there any consequence... could I get fired?? Oh no big deal... right what does a job provide?? Oh, money... but why do I need that. Oh, America is a capitalist society in which revenue is needed to sustain any sort of quality of life.
You need a quick lesson on free will. Free will is much more broader than you seem to think. If you are in your car, and a guy puts a gun to the window and says step out, you still have free will to say no. Do you value your life?? Likely, therefore you step out of the car, but you had the free will to say no, right?? Of course you did. So if you want to equate that by having free will, it means you voluntarily did something, thereby volunteer to do something, maybe carjacking should be legal.
We are still compelled to do many things in our life, life is compelling, because life has very serious consequences for not doing certain things. I go to work because I am compelled to, because I am not prepared to take the consequences of life and society if I don't work. Hopefully this helps you to see the answer to your last question.



Very hard to do, maybe not doable, but then again proving the sun will set is just as hard but no less the truth. Can I prove it to you, maybe, but do I have to?? I don't think so cause you already know!!! The evidence is overwhelming!! What, in part, are we debating?? Whether the President should put a clause that gives the military access to numbers and addresses to students? Well why would they even need this? For that matter, why do they need to train recruiters??!! Why?? To show, convince, people why the military is the right chose for them. To sell the educational benefits, the bonuses, the free trade training.

Now if majority, of people just wanted to come in it seems they wouldn't need to WASTE all this money! Whether the GI Bill, existed or not; people wouldn't care. They wouldn't need to hijack names from schools people would be looking them up so that they could have the honor of serving in the U.S. Military. You hire salesmen when your product needs selling, simple truth of life.