Posted on 11/18/2002 1:42:31 PM PST by anniegetyourgun
WASHINGTON -- Guess where the U.S. military has landed? On the grounds of high schools all over the country.
Military recruiters are using President George W. Bush's 2001 education act plus this year's law authorizing Pentagon spending programs to demand that principals hand over the names, addresses and phone numbers of all their students who are juniors and seniors.
What's going on here? What about privacy rights?
Some principals, citing laws saying that information on students is strictly confidential, were told emphatically earlier this year that little-known provisions of the military authorization measure and the No Child Left Behind Act "override any previous restrictions ... about disclosing student information to military recruiters."
Education and Defense Department officials insisted that educators must now notify parents at the beginning of each school year of their intention to give the military the information it wants about the students.
Of course, the officials conceded, parents may "opt out" and ask that schools bar any release of information about their kids.
However, many principals have been confused about the privacy issue and have not informed parents or students of their right to opt out.
Some have simply handed over the records without checking with parents or students. It's easy to see how the school officials were intimidated.
Last month they received a joint letter from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Education Secretary Rod Paige saying that sustaining the nation's all-volunteer military force "requires the active support of public institutions in presenting military opportunities to our young people for their consideration."
The secretaries said the new laws require high schools "to provide to military recruiters, upon request, access to secondary school students and directory information (names, addresses, phone numbers) on those students... .
"For some of our students, this may be the best opportunity they have to get a college education," the two Cabinet officials wrote.
Then they provided the educators guidelines "for compliance with these new laws." And the guidelines made it clear that if they don't comply, the schools will face the loss of federal funding.
I deplore this coercive approach and the resulting loss of privacy. It was prompted by Rep. David Vitter, R-La., who got upset because some schools, especially on the East and West Coasts, were barring Pentagon recruiters.
Vitter said their action "demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive."
The Pentagon has said that about 15 percent of American high schools were "problem schools" for recruiters.
I don't object to recruiters talking to students who want to listen. But I'm not convinced that the military needs to venture into high schools. The Army, for instance, has 1,600 recruiting offices and 4,000 recruiters around the country, who, by the way, are doing just fine.
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks caused a surge in patriotism and many young people rushed to join up.
Douglas Smith, an Army public affairs officer, said the service had met its recruitment quotas for two years in a row before Army scouts began hitting the high schools this year.
In the past the Army focused mostly on 21-year-olds. Smith said the goal this year was 79,500 and that so far 79,604 have enlisted.
However, the military might argue that its new focus on high school students is necessary as the nation prepares for an endless war on terrorism and for an allegedly short-term war with Iraq.
After all, the commanders are saying they will need up to 250,000 troops for the Battle of Baghdad.
But as the military recruiters expand their efforts in high schools, I think they should include other things besides upbeat spiels about educational opportunities and happy careers in defense of the country.
I think they should talk about the dangers of war and add a visit to a veterans' hospital where wounded soldiers, sailors and marines from previous wars languish with permanent injuries. War does that.
Serving in the nation's armed forces is a highly honorable profession. But as long as we do not have the draft, such service should be a truly free choice.
And the cost in human terms -- including the possibility of giving one's life -- should not be hidden in the selling job.
I worry that what happened in earlier wars will happen again -- that privileged students, mainly white, will find ways to get loans and scholarships for their college education without getting into uniform.
That means less privileged students, including poor minorities, who don't have such opportunities, will end up on the battlefront in greater numbers than their percentage of the total population.
It's true that for many young, deprived Americans of all races, the military may be a way out.
But they and everyone else should join because they want to and not because they feel -- or are led to feel -- that they can't do anything else.
(Helen Thomas can be reached at the e-mail address helent@hearstdc.com)
Which article or amendment to the Constitution was that again Hellen?
Helen was never subject to the draft. I was. And her statement was true, until student deferments were eliminated and all 18-year-olds were subject to a draft lottery. After that, it didn't matter if you were in school or not.
The problem is unequal access. Birkenstock-shod administrators will cheerfully give We Hate America University personal information, but will not grant the same access to military recruiters.
but the military has a right an OBLIGATION to recruit. It's the law of the land....AMEN!
The Old Battle axe doesn't realize that FERPA law requires schools to provied directory information the the military if it povided it to anyone at all. Previously schools would give directories to vendors, colleges, universities, trade schools, ANYONE but the military, which BTW, has a congressional mandate to recruit new members.
Old Basttle Axe HT must have been in a coma for the past few decades as recruiters have been on campuses all along.
Not to be construed as taking up for Helen Thomas, but the right to privacy used to be covered by the 4th Amendment, until the courts rendered the entire article moot:
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you like the idea of just any of your information being handed over by just any government official to just any government official?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.