Why I would give a YES vote for S.F. Prop V

The proposition

Prop V caught my attention when I saw a story about it covered in the S.F. Chronicle.

Early this year, the San Francisco School Board decided that they knew what was best for the children of San Francisco and set in force a phasing out of JROTC in S.F. schools. They argued that the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program is a military recruitment tool not welcome in public education targeting youngsters. This would force the U.S. military sponsored program to ship out, pulling funding for the programs.

Proposition V, a citizens ballot initiative, would possibly curtail this decision by telling the board that the public supports JROTC in the city's public high schools if a majority of voters gave a YES vote.

Argument against

The League of Young Voters, whom I generally agree with, gave a NO endorsement. Here is why:

"This is a sensitive issue. We respect that there are some high school kids who feel very strongly about JROTC. They argue that San Francisco's JROTC is unique. It's gender balanced, unlike our current military with its institutional sexism and INSANELY UNACCEPTABLE sexual harassment and abuse of women. SF JROTC is 50% female, with women making up a majority of the leadership. There are also several out LGBT students. But ultimately, we just can't condone having a military recruitment program in our high schools targeting 14 year olds. The military pays half the cost of JROTC and hires the instructors. They're not doing that for altruistic reasons. They want more soldiers. Our members have a variety of perspectives about the military--from pragmatists to pacifists. But recruiting 14 year olds simply isn't cool."

More critical websites and positions posit that the JROTC system:

* promotes violence among teenagers and site incidences of gang related activity and mischief turned to mayhem by JROTC cadets

* Is a tool that targets most minorities to join the military

* Argue that there are better, more productive alternatives that high schools could utilize to create 'better citizens' (one of the mandates that JROTC operates under)

* Decry the U.S. military and anything associated with it as a tool to further U.S. imperialism abroad

Argument in Support

There are a number of reasons why I had to wrestle with this proposition in order to finally arrive at a supporting nod for it. Particularly, I graduated from Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento, an inner-city high school where during my four years there we had four drive by shootings and almost daily gang-related fights. I served in my high school's highly decorated Air force JROTC programs in the state, if not the country. In fact, I graduated as a Cadet Lt. Colonel, and as our '99th support group commander' was fourth in command of the Wing. We had circa 400 cadets and three Aerospace Science Instructors (ASIs - the JROTC teachers). I applied to the Air Force academy but was rejected. I subsequently went on to accept an ROTC (college) scholarship though after a year of college, had completely changed my mind about going into the military.

By 2003, two years after high school, I was protesting the entrance of the United States into conflict with Iraq (and Afghanistan) and seriously had doubts about the nature of the United States as a force of good in the world, completely loathed the "kill people and break things" nature of the military and wondered if I had not been duped by some far-reaching conspiracy to turn kids into killers.

A few years later, after watching people with no experience with the military or JROTC/ROTC (college) level programs attempt to dictate a 'military recruiters off campus', I started to really think about what it was that I learned that made me edge away from the more... well.. outlandish and radical approach I felt I had been taking. So here are several counter-arguments that JROTC serves a bad example for our students.

1. Recruitment plays a very little part of the program. While it is true and undeniable that the JROTC offers high school students things like free rides on huey helicopters and AC-135 cargo planes, playing with cutting-edge flight simulators and the chance to look great in a uniform - the majority of things we learned as cadets were leadership skills and a chance to really explore the military and ask straight-forward questions to our instructors. From my experience, these instructors spend plenty of time with us and unlike recruiters, develop a rapport and a sense of trust with us . The instructors cared about their students, so they answered our questions honestly. If anything they try to caution the gung-ho people OUT of going into the military. We learned things like Time-Quality-Management, proper United States flag etiquette and how to properly dress and wear business attire. How many 14 year olds learn how to shine their shoes properly and keep a gig line?

2. The JROTC does not discriminate the way the military does. For instance: one of the Wing Commanders (the top cadet) my senior year was a 4.0 GPA student, co-commander of the heavy drill team who won several scholarships to college - not the military. She was openly lesbian. In fact, I recall several gay and lesbian friends in the unit, who joined precisely because of the tight-knit protective community that JROTC offered. It sure wasn't the 'fashionable' blues.

3. JROTC offered opportunities that other programs in my poor school didn't offer. We were the only students with our own lockers. We had free and open access to computers - and i personally had the privilege of setting up our program's computer network. We had a parent advisory board that my mom served on - every parent was invited to be active in the program, while the 'PTSA' was 'competitive.' Our program was the ONLY ONE on campus to mandate community service. We spent hours after school practicing or working on our local communities, volunteering.

4. My unit also offered our students a private gym and a place that was considered safe, devoid of the constant violence plaguing the school grounds. We were looked up to by teachers and administrators as people who they could often trust. While any number of students at any place sometimes take things to far - as is the case at some JROTC units with "gang" activity, my school served as a counter-weight: we looked out for each other and took people away from gang violence. Some of the students who started high school as wanna-be gangsters and joined JROTC either shaped-up or were shipped-out. Some saw the benefits and decided to stay.

Conclusion

Does the JROTC program partly have an aim to 'recruit soldiers'? Yes, undoubtedly so. My question must be: what is wrong with this? I would much rather have soldiers who have learned about the military (JROTC cadets receive a higher entering enlistment status or bonus pay in ROTC) rather than those who are just talked into it by on the street recruiters. Moreover, the skills learned are much more applicable than to just military situations. Are there some parts of the program I would de-emphasize? Yes, definitely so - including perhaps re-structuring cadet 'encampments' so that they do not place people into 'Stanford prison study like roles. Some critiques offer that there are other 'leadership driven community service organizations' can be replaced with JROTC that are not inherently tied to the military like. This may be true: but who will fund them? One of the best deals that JROTc has going for them is that it is funded by DoD - who also kick a percentage of their funding to the schools' general fund. I welcome all of the alternatives that include community service learning, leadership and teamwork building as can be funded and operated well. Unfortunately, our national priorities do not reflect this - and many local ones do not either. Instead of coming up with a viable alternative, and one of the main reasons why the San Francisco school board is faulty in its decisions, is that it would rather make a political statement than solve a problem.

JROTC is good for our communities. Do not let isolated incidences speak for the overall success of keeping students on track, volunteering and otherwise learning leadership and being included where they would probably not. Until we have something just as good that can reasonably replace it - we should keep it in our schools. Vote yes on Prop V.