November '08 Voter Guide: Prop V, Pickles in a Pickle

Constant Readers,

We had JROTC at Pebblebrook High School where I spent a traumatic and enjoyable four years back before Yahoo! was alive and Howard Cosell was dead. Ah, simpler times. Mostly what I remember about JROTC members was that they were lovingly referred to as "pickles" in reference to the green outfits they wore every other Wednesday or so and that they served as security guards at basketball games. ("Did you pay for those nachos?")

Some of the folks from JROTC at PHS went into the military, some didn't. After graduation one of my brothers joined the Army and one joined the Marines. Neither had been in the JROTC.

Meanwhile, I was in performing arts throughout high school, spending time with the dancing queens and giving every indication of my future full-blown hagdom.

So, as you can probably guess, this issue of JROTC is a complicated one for me. Which is why my submission to the Examiner was way too long and had to be cut despite the fact that I suggested they just make my picture smaller.

Here's what I originally wrote, then cut, then sent, and got cut some more:

Timeline

1991 - San Francisco Unified School District votes to ban military recruiters from all public high school and college campuses. JROTC is not part of the ban.

2001 - The No Child Let Behind Act (NCLB) is passed.  Buried in that law is a provision that basically says, “Hey hippies, wanna ban military recruiters from your campuses? Fine, but no more federal funding.” In SF, patchouli-scented rooms lit up with debate. What to do? We can’t afford to forgo federal funding…

2005 - ...lets pass a policy statement! In November Proposition I passed with 71 percent of the votes. That proposition declared it the will of the people of San Francisco to “oppose U.S. military recruiters using public school…facilities to recruit young people into the armed forces.” So there! But it's only a policy statement so please keep sending money…

2006 - SFUSD votes 4-2 to phase out JROTC by the end of the 2007-2008 school year, in part, because “JROTC programs on campus constitute a form of military recruitment” and are therefore “in violation of our policy governing fair access for recruiters on campuses.” (Resolution here: Download nov_14_2006_jrotc_resolution.pdf) No Child Left Behind does not define JROTC as military recruiters. And what this all seems to be saying is that JROTC must go because it gives the recruiters more access to high school students than we extend to employers and colleges - and NCLB only requires "equivalent access." 

2007 - Because the alternative leadership program promised in the 2006 resolution is not in place yet, School Board votes for a one-year extension. (Resolution here: Download dec_11_2007_jrotc_resolution.pdf.) 

2008 - The JROTC program in San Francisco high schools is set to end altogether at the conclusion of the 2008-2009 school year.  So Proposition V is on the November ballot to make it the "policy of the City & County of San Francisco that students in San Francisco public high schools should continue to be able to choose to participate in the schools' Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) program."   

Facts

Number of JROTC programs in San Francisco high schools: Seven; Balboa, Burton, Galileo, Lincoln, Lowell, Mission and Washington

Percentage of females in leadership positions:  According to Choice for Students - JROTC "Over 50% of the cadets are female. 88% of brigade staff — cadet leadership group across all 7 high schools — were female in 2008. In 2008 and 2007, the brigade commanders were female."

Percentage of JROTC cadets who go to college: 98%

Enlistment rate of JROTC participants: At the end of the 2007 school year, only two out of 1,465 cadets in the JROTC program enlisted in the military. According to the Director of SF JROTC Robert Powell, statistics JROTC instructors are required to maintain show that the SF JROTC military enlistment rate is 3% - which includes kids going to military colleges and who stay in ROTC in college. The Department of Defense reports that nationwide the number is about 43%.

**I realize I am relying heavily on statistics provided by pro-JROTC and JROTC folks, but I haven't found any anti-JROTC information that presents different numbers or information about SF schools. 

And soooo...

I only see two arguments that, if true, might be reasons to make JROTC disappear: (1) that JROTC constitutes military recruitment, and (2) that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is manifest in these schools.

First, assuming JROTC is a tool for military recruiting, they appear to be doing a pretty crappy job in San Francisco. Only two in 2007?? Hell, I'd consider serving two years in exchange for a case of champagne and a Sephora gift certificate. These people are obviously not trying. If the enrollment rate skyrocketed at some point, I'd be all for reevaluating JROTC.

Now, about the detestable “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to which the US military subscribes. In City high schools, instructors are all retired military officers who are no longer subject to being kicked out of the service for being out of the closet. But because military folks hire and assign the instructors, it’s hard to know what kind of screening goes on.

However, no one seriously disputes that SF high school JROTC programs don’t follow the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.  According to SF ROTC director Col. Robert Powell - the only openly LGBT American Legion group - the Alexander Hamilton Post - supports the SF JROTC. Several openly gay students reportedly testified in support of the JROTC program at the school board. I read an a comments section somewhere that the head of JROTC at Galileo High School (who just graduated) is openly gay. And because Beth made me promise to write about it: there was an attractive teenage girl who spoke at a Board hearing about being bisexual and in JROTC. Which pretty much got everyone's attention.

I wish they had been testifying before the US Congress instead of the SFUSD; it seems a shame to be scrapping the high school program because of a federal policy we don’t even follow.

When the JROTC was first marked for the chopping block in 2006, plans were put into place to create an alternative leadership program.  According to a paid ballot argument against Prop V submitted by the American Friends Service Committee, a program called “Leadership Pathway” is in place at Lincoln and Balboa high schools. And I wouldn’t have a problem at all if students flocked to the new program and the JROTC presence ended due to lack of enrollment. But to just take it away? I’m not so sure.

It seems to me that the very military leaders that would create positive change within the armed forces are the ones San Francisco’s gay-friendly, female-led, egalitarian JROTC is likely to produce. Assuming any even enlist.

--Melissa

Comments

[sfmike]

From what I've seen of San Francisco JROTC members, the vast majority are Asian-American and sort of geeky, the kind of people who usually get bullied in P.E. classes in mean high schools (aren't they all?). Until recently, being a member of JROTC meant you didn't have to experience the P.E. gauntlet, and it also meant you got to wear cool uniforms.

Even though I think of myself as a leftist, pacifist homo, I totally support the program, and think the school board is being absurd trying to be holier than thou and ban them. Thanks also for that 2% recruitment figure / 98% college continuation rate. Sort of says it all, doesn't it?

[Rob Anderson]

Good post. A couple of other points can be made. The opponents of JROTC on the school board are partyline SF progressives and their opposition is essentially ideological: They oppose JROTC not just because of don't-ask-don't-tell issue but because they think any association with the US military is essentially sinister and/or immoral. In their minds, being anti-war requires that they be anti-US military in general. That is, they essentially agree with Al Qaeda that the US is the Great Satan. Their opposition to JROTC is ideological posturing at the expense of a lot of kids who find the program useful, which means their demonstration of their moral superiority is more important than the utility and/or popularity of the program.

[jamie]

What I want to know is why District 9 would vote for Mark Sanchez for Supervisor if they're so concerned about gang violence when the JROTC program he spent a good chunk of his time on the School Board trying to kill is a reasonable alternative for kids to find the safety and acceptance in a structured group (family, if you will) that teaches discipline and offers leadership opportunities. Just like the "pimp enabler" human trafficking measure that Sanchez and fellow School Board and now SUpervisor candidate Eric Mar voted to endorse as part of the County's Democratic Committee, eliminating the option of the JROTC program shows just how far their heads' are up their respective asses.

[Paul Fahey]

Great column as usual. A friend of mine turned me on to your blog and I am loving it!

The hypocricy of the anti-JROTC crowd is amazing...choice for everyone except the high school kids opting for this program. I'm gay and don't like the idea of kids going into the military either, but the numbers are tiny and in the end it is their choice as well.

Finally, I am totally inviting you to my gay wedding when and if it happens...would love to see you crying in the crowd and catching the bouquet!!

[Greg]

Sanchez and Mar have a lot of nerve asking anyone for a pay raise and a promotion to the Board when they clearly are too easily distracted to finish things they start.

If they really didn't like JROTC it was their job to come up with something equally as accepted and prestigious. Instead Sanchez mumbles something about "ethnic studies" and Mar is too busy playing Daly's games on the DCCC, voting to decriminalize prostitution.

[Anonymous]

There are some great ideas out there for alternatives to JROTC, including programs that would prepare kids for the police or fire academies after graduation, or train students as emergency response teams (like NERT, only for kids-- should also footnote here that JROTC also trains kids in emergency response procedures).

Anyway, my point is -- why can we only have ONE program? JROTC seems to be working for the kids who take it, it's easy enough to make sure the program is voluntary (the district now requires families to opt-in by signing a consent form), so let's start working on some alternatives that DON'T have a military connection rather than ripping up the one program we do have, leaving 1,500 kids in the lurch.

So why has the progressive faction been so focused on ending JROTC rather than on possible alternatives? Because it's easier to shout something down than it is to roll up your sleeves and create something better.

[DJTennessee]

I taught for a few years at High School X... The JROTC instructor at Gal is NOT the only openly gay person in a leadership position in the SFUSD JROTC. SF is where retired, out military poeple like to go.

[Anonymous]

@DJTennessee: you said it, sister - my 'dar totally went off when I met some of the other JROTC instructors.