Found at: http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleprint/1459/-1/282/
|
Expanding the Poverty Draft
|
|
Top level
Dynamic Magazine
Back Issues
2003 - July
Back in the year 2000, many things were different. September 11 had not occurred yet. The planet was not embroiled at that time in a far reaching “war on terror.� The economy, while it was slowing down, had not sunk as low as it has now. The list of differences goes on and on, so much so that it almost seems like it was a different world.
Back in the year 2000, many things were different. September 11 had not occurred yet. The planet was not embroiled at that time in a far reaching “war on terror.� The economy, while it was slowing down, had not sunk as low as it has now. The list of differences goes on and on, so much so that it almost seems like it was a different world.
When Republican Governor of Texas George W. Bush campaigned against Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 presidential elections, he did not campaign on a platform of “fighting terrorism.� He didn’t pledge to invade Afghanistan or to overthrow the government of Iraq. He didn’t campaign on a platform of changing U.S. military policy to a policy of pre-emptive strikes against other nations. What were Bush, Jr.’s promises then?
George W. Bush promised to be the Education President. The image that was crafted of the then-governor of Texas was that of a “compassionate conservative,� who, while advocating a conservative approach to the economy and social issues, really had the good of the people at heart. The idea that conservative values, as they were called, really would benefit everyone, including the poor, was carefully crafted and pushed during the Bush campaign on all issues, but especially on education.
When Bush was elected, he promised that education would be an overriding theme of his presidency, and, indeed, education was one of the first things that Bush took action on upon coming into office. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was signed into law on January 8, 2002. The NCLB, in the words of a government website devoted to explaining the act, “represents his education reform plan and contains the most sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965.� There has been a lot of controversy over its main provisions — most critics agree that it harms public school systems by adding pressure on them with new regulations and standards but providing basically no extra funding to accomplish these goals, and that the NCLB actually takes funding away from schools that are not able to achieve.
According to a spokesperson we interviewed from the War Resisters League, there is another danger that is less obvious: it subjects students to harassment from military officials. Hidden within the document, he says, is a provision that forces schools to reveal students’ information to the army.
“NCLB is something like 671 pages, and buried in there somewhere are a few paragraphs about military recruitment — that’s section 9528,� he said. “What it’s essentially asking for is that any school that receives federal money — public or private — to supply recruiters with student names, addresses, phone numbers — their contact information. It went into effect July 8, 2002.�
If parents do not want the information shared with recruiters, they have to notify school officials. “It’s called an opt-out situation, and that’s what the NCLB allows for. There are repercussions to that as well. If a child decides to opt out, that means also being opted out from colleges that might be interested. It can be a catch-22 situation.
“The major threat that the government’s been using is that if people are opposed to the NCLB as concerns military recruiters, the threat is that they’re gonna be stripped of all federal aid that they get. Since almost all public schools are aided by the state and the federal government as well, loss of federal money would close down the school.�
According to Harold Jordan’s writing in Rethinking Schools, prior to the NCLB 2,000 American schools had barred military recruiters. Jordan adds that another recently passed law allows schools to bar military recruiters from coming on campus only if the majority of the district’s governing board votes to, or if such access is denied to all post-secondary schools or prospective employers. Districts with schools deemed noncompliant could be visited by Pentagon officials, who could also request assistance from the governor and representatives from that district. NCLB contains the added sanction of the possible loss of federal funding.
“Disclosure of student names, addresses and possibly unlisted phone numbers without consent raises serious concerns about privacy. It subjects students and their families to unwanted release of personal information to outside entities as a condition of exercising the right — and obligation of attending school,� Donna Lieberman of the New York branch of the American Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) says in a letter to school officials and parents. “Unsolicited recruiting letters from possibly every branch of the United States military may impose inappropriate pressure to respond. Moreover, for new immigrants, many of whom are particularly vulnerable in the aftermath of [September 11, 2001], the potential for intimidation and coercion is even greater.�
“We have to demand that you opt in, and not opt out. That is to say that you have to ask for this letter to be sent to your house,� says Estevan Nembhard, organizer for Uptown Youth for the Peace and Justice. Nembhard added that it’s necessary to use town hall meetings, mailings, and any other way to get the word out that students have the right to opt out of receiving recruiting pitches from the military. According to Nembhard, it’s also vitally important that we organize against the “poverty draft,� where the US military doesn’t technically draft people, but drafts people economically by being the only option for poor and disadvantaged youth.
Dan Margolis is from Worcester, Mass. and is a frequent contributor to Dynamic.
