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
way back when, ROTC was for people who can't do Phys Ed. there is no better way for the military to recruit than to hit the high schools. you figure, they're young, lively, and probably willing to die for a cause. with the iraqi war that has bankrupt this country, it would be well advised for young people to know what they're dying for because their families will have to carry a heavy burden for life when that son or daughter is no longer here.
Melissa...thank you for this article! I plan on voting for Prop V this November. I yet to find a logical proven statistic or fact in regards to JROTC discriminating against gays or lesbians or that they're "recruitment factories" for the military. It's a leadership development program that I went through at Lowell JROTC and I chose to serve in the Marine reserves after I graduated from high school. I wanted to have the military as an option in case I couldn't find a job in the civilian world after I got through college. Having backup plans just in case something doesn't go the way you want it to. Something a good leader has thinks about and plans for and that was taught to me by JROTC leadership. Those that oppose, how about learning what the program is about, what the students who are taking it think and want to get out of the program instead of pulling make believe and unproven "statements of fact". Geez, you'd think that the same people who oppose Bush for his "WMD in Iraq" statements and actions wouldn't resort to the same tactics. What? The pot calling the kettle black?
Thank you for posting this article. I was a member of the Lowell JROTC program for all 4 years of high school. For anyone opposed to JROTC because it supposedly recruits students into the military, only 2 students from my class sought a military career. I do not recall having any recruiters visit us, and althgouh our instructors were retired military personnel, they did encourage us to enlist. In addition, the program is anti-discriminatory. My fellow cadets were of various ethnicities, gender and orientation.
The program focused on discipline, leadership, teamwork, respect, physical education and even basic life support skills (i.e. CPR). I have very fond memories of the program. To this day, my closest friends are the same ones I had while in JROTC. If anyone really wants to know what JROTC stands for, ask the students themselves. Please review the facts rather than judge JROTC by its cover. Vote Yes on Prop V.
Correction (typo in the previous listing): the instructors did NOT encourage enlistment.
Excellent post, Melissa! (From a fellow Examiner.)
There are several errors and inconsistencies in Ms. Griffin's post.
No Child Behind does not define JROTC as military recruitment, but JROTC does. "JROTC is one of the best recruitment devices we could have," in the words of former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. JROTC regulations state unequivocally that the purpose of JROTC is to encourage military careers. Pentagon officials openly brag that 40-50% of JROTC cadets end up in the military.
Everywhere there is opposition to JROTC, the local pro-JROTC forces claim that hardly anybody from their program gets recruited. It always happens somewhere else.
The 3% rate that San Francisco pro-JROTC forces claim is preposterous. Facts:
I have asked Jill Wynns where she got the 3% recruitment rate that she has often cited. She told me that the numbers came from the school district. When asked to produce these figures, she refused to respond.
The Business Times not long ago ran a pro-JROTC article claiming that the local rate is 5%. When I challenged them, they claimed that the figures came from the school district. When asked to produce those figures, they claimed that the school board couldn't find them anymore.
I have asked Johnny Wang, the Yes on V campaign consultant, to provide documentation for his figures. Again, no answer.
I filed a public records request with the school district asking for any information they have about JROTC recruitment rates. Their unequivocal answer is that they have no such data.
Col. Robert Powell's figures, cited in your article, are simply not believable, especially given the source. In any event, he is speaking only about the 75 or so seniors in JROTC when they graduated. His figures do NOT include the hundreds of JROTC cadets who were recruited into JROTC when they were freshmen or sophomores, but didn't continue on with the program. Does anyone really believe that the recruiters don't target these kids? Of course they do.
Nor do Powell's figures include JROTC cadets who join the military a year or two or more after graduation, having faced the hard knocks of life.
Those who tell you that JROTC is not a military recruitment tool, or that there are not a significant number of San Franciso JROTC cadets who get recruited, are just spinning tales.
JROTC is, without a doubt, a program that discriminates against the LGBT community. As you state, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy precludes active-duty military officers from being openly lesbian or gay. JROTC instructors are recruited, vetted, trained and assigned from this pool of candidates. That is why there are NO openly lesbian or gay JROTC instructors. That's discrimination.
But, if that is not enough, all JROTC cadets -- except for openly LGBT cadets -- can join the military. LGBT cadets would have to go back in the closet, if they can. JROTC cadets get a variety of benefits if they enlist, such as a higher beginning pay rate (to encourage recruitment of JROTC cadets, of course). These benefits are not available to openly LGBT cadets. That's discrimination.
No other school district program would be allowed to discriminate in this fashion -- except the US military.
The proponents of Proposition V are running a classic disinformation campaign, like the US military does all around the world. Don't fall for it.
@nortonsf - thank you for your thoughtful comments. I do want to point out: the fact that the school board nixed JROTC without ever collecting its own data on enlistment figures is a severe flaw in the process. Enlistment number are critical to the argument on either side and should have been collected by detractors.
I'm glad you appreciate the thoughtfulness of my comments, Ms. Griffin. I appreciate your willingness to engage in a frank exchange of views.
You say that the school board should have collected "its own data on enlistment figures." How could they do that? How could the school district know whether or not JROTC cadets join the military after they graduate, much less a year or two or more down the road?
Only the Pentagon knows how many JROTC cadets end up in the military, and they openly brag that 40-50% of JROTC cadets get recruited.
It was the pro-JROTC forces who used to claim that the school district was the source for their preposterously-low recruitment statistics, until that was exposed as false. If you want to believe Col. Powell's figures, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
In the last week, I have read two letters in the Examiner from former JROTC cadets praising the program, denying that it is a military recruitment program, and then stating that they ended up enlisting in the military.
JROTC is one of the Pentagon’s primary military recruitment programs. That is why it was created, that is what it has always been, and that is what it will always be. The program was created 90 years ago at the height of the hysteria of World War I, when President Woodrow Wilson needed troops for the "war to end all wars." The program was reauthorized in 1964, when President Lyndon Baines Johnson needed troops for yet another doomed military adventure. JROTC's growth in recent years is directly tied to the "endless war" strategy of the current warmakers in Washington.
We don't need to put our 14 and 15 year-old youth into a military recruitment track. Please Vote No on Proposition V.
"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."
Melissa, I hope you are a journalist that's true to your word and voice your support for the elimination of JROTC from our schools. The official numbers are in and enrollment for JROTC this year is at 503. Compared to the 1,600 cadet average annual enrollment, we see a 70% drop in JROTC enrollment.
This drop can be largely attributed to the removal or PE credits following the state mandate that PE should be taught by qualified instructors (a soldier with a GED who spent four years guarding a checkpoint in Iraq may be qualified as a JROTC instructor, but not a PE teacher). As well as the implementation of voluntary enrollment form, preventing counselors from dumping kids into JROTC for administrative reasons or to discipline "problem" students.
So with only the "virtues" of JROTC as it's main draw, the program only managed to pull a third of their average enrollment. Yet San Francisco still pays $1 million out of our local taxes to continue a program that has been rejected by the vast majority of their average yearly enrollees.
I hope that in light of these facts that you'd refrain from championing lop-sided overspending on one school program at the cost of depriving other school programs much needed funding; risking their possible elimination not through low enrollment, but by the simple fact that the district can't afford to continue them. After all, aren't you for preserving choice for our students?
@Marko - Thank you for your comments. But taking away the PE credit certainly doesn't foster choice. And even without the PE credit - I suspect a number of student dropped out of the program because it was slated to end last year, then got a 1 year extension and will now end this year.
Also, it is estimated that replacing JROTC will cost well over $1 million dollars.
"But taking away the PE credit certainly doesn't foster choice."
PE credit was taken away following a state mandate that Physical Education should be taught by qualified instructors, which JROTC's instructors aren't. I'm all for choice but giving PE credit to a non-PE course taught by unqualified instructors is absurd and defeats the purpose of having an institution to provide structured and standardized education. The state does not give JROTC courses PE credit for the same reason pottery classes aren't given math or science credit.
"And even without the PE credit - I suspect a number of student dropped out of the program because it was slated to end last year, then got a 1 year extension and will now end this year."
You can "suspect" that all you want, but students aren't stupid. When they read the course catalog before school started to pick electives, they saw that JROTC is still offered as an elective. This catalog is updated every year before school starts, so there is no reason for there to be confusion with the students. The drop is a reflection of the fact that the vast majority of students who enroll into JROTC are there to get out of PE or by force. Let's not delude ourselves that it's something else.
"Also, it is estimated that replacing JROTC will cost well over $1 million dollars. "
Estimated by who? This is the same unsubstantiated claim that Prop V's proponents have made. In fact all the arguments that you made that I just refuted are the same claims being made by the Yes on V people. I hope your readers take note of this and see the true nature of you journalistic integrity.
Let's be clear, given the facts that I've just outlined countering the claims made by both you and the Yes on V campaign. Are you still saying we should maintain JROTC, despite your earlier proclamations about not having any qualms about JROTC being removed due to low enrollment?
@Marko - The $1 million figure was quoted by school board member (and JROTC supporter) Jill Wynns. So, fair enough to take issue. What we know for a fact is that we share the cost of the program with the military. I've read that it is 50/50. Assuming we replace this program with an equivalent one, it stands to reason that, when paying 100% of the costs, it is likely to be more.
And I never said the we should be giving PE credit for JROTC, only that taking it away doesn't foster choice. Which I maintain is true. (The state mandate is not at all new, only a new tactic by folks who take issue with JROTC.)
And I agree that students aren't stupid. If they are only enrolling for PE credit, or if there is a more attractive alternative offered, the JROTC programs can die a natural death. (Which is probably what the folks behind the PE credit challenge had in mind.) I'm just not on board with doing it for them.
As always, thank you for writing.
No we do not pay for half the cost of the program, we pay for half the cost of instructor salaries and the Dept. of Defense pays the other half. We pay the full cost of instructor benefits as well as other administrative expenses which adds up to about $1 million of the $1.6 million annual cost of JROTC. Are we to believe that $1 million is 50% of $1.6 million?
I can fax or email you the report from the school district if you want. It'd be a nice change of pace for you to use objective reports as a source instead of asking the Yes on V campaign what you should say.
The average PE teacher makes around $40,000, which is half or less than half of what the average JROTC instructor makes annually. So no, hiring more PE teachers to accommodate the run off from students who can't receive PE credits from JROTC will not increase costs at all. The cost of alternative programs will ultimately be determined by what type of credentials will be required from the instructors who teach them. I guess this is one part where you're free to "suspect" any dollar amount you so wish to.
You maintain that we should foster choice over the responsibility of giving students a proper education? I just want to be clear of what you're arguing here.
JROTC has died a natural death. By their own regulations a program can only be maintained if a hundred or more students enroll in each school. Five out of the seven schools who offer JROTC failed to meet that requisite. If JROTC refuses to comply to its own regulations then it should be up to the district to carry out that policy. Why do you find it so objectionable for local school boards to adhere to both state and JROTC policies?
Another thing I forgot to mention, you're only looking at total cost instead of per pupil cost. No matter how you cut it, spending a million dollars for 500 students is lop-sided. No way will an alternative program cost that much, and if so, that would be the responsibility of the school board to address. One thing is for certain, when we maintain a course that is sub-contracted to the pentagon such as JROTC, we have to play by their rules. Which is yet another reason why we need to replace JROTC with locally initiated programs.
Moreover, there are programs that emulate the discipline and teamwork building aspects of JROTC without ties to the military such as Neighborhood Emergency Response Team (NERT), firefighter, and paramedic training courses. Such programs already exist in other school districts, and have a set curriculum that can be seamlessly plugged into San Francisco High Schools.
The best part is, a lot of these programs are taught by VOLUNTEERS or instructors who are payed through emergency preparedness funds. In case you don't know, the San Francisco Bay Area tends to get shaky every now and then. And we like to invest a lot of money to make sure that we're prepared for when The Big One strikes. Not so much the case in Georgia I know, but since you're so adept at satirizing the Board of Supes, I think it's safe to assume that you've also become assimilated to our earthquake culture.
@Marko - I don't think we can call it a "natural death" to vote to end the JROTC program and point to the declining number of enrolees. And I'm all for offering alternatives like NERT and other training courses. Lord knows we Georgia transplants will need someone to know what's going on when things get shakey.
Again, thank you for writing.
The program has failed according to JROTC standards, but rather than pulling the plug like they're supposed to, they kept it on life support, at a high cost to local tax payers. In this situation it was right for the school board to step up to the plate.
You know how bureaucracies work, if something's dead, its demise has to be repeatedly pointed out from people to realize it. I swear if it weren't for Dateline specials on his death and illegitimate daughter, people in the south will still think Strom Thurmond is still in senate.
"I swear if it weren't for Dateline specials on his death and illegitimate daughter, people in the south will still think Strom Thurmond is still in senate." Now there's something we can agree on!
Maam,I hope any waivering voters will get to read your post. The ignorance out there on this subject is astonishing, and because they don't know much,they tend to side with the more negative side. all your statistics are true, i know they all came from pro JROTC.but we take a creed to not lie cheat or steal. I am a student at Galileo and trust me,I knew that openly gay classmate that was a head when I was in my sophomore year. He was welcomed in the program and I only know of one person that actually enlisted, regardless of what my instructor told him to be careful of and be sure of his decision and many friends that told him ( who are in JROTC ) not to go. He wanted to join most of his life and this was one out of about 150 students. ormore imnotsure
@ Judy: It's hard to take the statistics from the Yes on V campaign seriously. Originally they stated that they acquired it from Jill Wynns who got it from the district. But when pressed to reveal those stats the district revealed that they actually do not keep records of JROTC graduate enlistment rates. In the end, the only credible source is the Dept. of Defense figure of 40-50%. And while proponents of V insist that San Francisco being a liberal city will yield lower enlistment rates, voters can't rely on simple conjecture to make their decisions.
Lastly, no one is arguing that JROTC in San Francisco allows LGBT students to participate in the program. But they are in fact denied ROTC college scholarships and other benefits that non-LGBT cadets can receive.
But what I find to be a real shame (and a source of bewilderment), is where all the momentum from the Yes on V campaign has been focused. When given opportunities to speak to major media outlets, representatives from Yes on V seem more intent on criticizing candidates for the supervisor in SF, a bit counter-intuitive considering the Board of Supes have no bearing in the decision making process with the Board of Education; the source of the JROTC phase-out. It's a shame that the tens of thousands of dollars coming from the Chamber of Commerce, Association of Realtors and other business interest groups have been misdirected to and unrelated race involving candidates who have championed the gains made by organized labor and housing rights advocates. This momentum could be put to better use by challenging DADT.
@Melissa: I've heard rumors that the late Senator Thurmond actually has a modified "Speak and Spell" to carry out his filibusters in case there was to be a vote on giving reparations for slavery. Perhaps a southern expatriate such as yourself could shed some light on this.
wowwwwwwwwwww
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!