Letters to the Editor

Editor:
Your editorial in favor of the JROTC program (July 2008) missed the mark on several points. First, the high school program does not lead directly to being an officer if a student joins the military upon graduation. Such a student simply gets a promotion from private E-1 to private E-2 upon completion of basic training. If a student wants to become an officer, he must either go on to the college ROTC program or be accepted to and graduate from Officers Candidate School (OCS) while in the military.

Second, JROTC is not simply a leadership program. In 2000, General Eric K. Shinseki, then chief of staff of the United States Army, testified to Congress and JROTC students, saying: "Thirty percent of them end up joining the Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JROTC)."

JROTC is a military recruiting program. I graduated from Galileo High School in 1966 as a first lieutenant in JROTC, and I recall that out of five of my friends in JROTC (four of whom were Chinese), four joined the military and three went to Vietnam. Why? Because JROTC taught us military beliefs and values - including absolute trust and obedience to authority rather than critical thinking - and filled us with heroic images of infantrymen in combat, helicopters flying overhead, etc., just like in the recruiting posters. Local advocates may claim that JROTC is "not a recruiting program," but common sense tells us that the Army would not spend money and resources on a program unless it gets something back from it. What it gets is new recruits - our children.

Lastly, neither the peace movement nor JROTC opponents "mock the men and women who serve." On March 1, 2006, the military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" reported that "72 percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll.

" If we truly support the troops, we should listen to what they say. As a member of Veterans for Peace, I work closely with Iraq Veterans Against the War and with active-duty soldiers. Two weeks ago, I was in Texas talking to soldiers from Fort Hood. They report that sentiment against the war continues to run high and many soldiers simply want out. We support the troops, which is exactly why we oppose using and abusing them in wars for oil.
Michael Wong

Editor:
I happened to walk by Argonne Elementary School on 18th Avenue where a kick-off for Eric Mar's bid for District 1 supervisor was in progress. At the door, two young girls were being redirected to the back of the school where students were gathered to protest Eric Mar's attempt to abolish the JROTC program from City schools. The students' protest was held out of sight from the Eric Mar rally. Why were the students banished to another site instead of being allowed to be near the object of their protest?

I talked to a retired police officer who was there to support the students. He was an original gang task force member and was one of the first officers responding to the tragic gang-related Golden Dragon massacre in Chinatown a few years back. He has first-hand knowledge that members of JROTC played a large role in the Task Force's successful reduction of gang activities in Chinatown. He said the JROTC is an organizational role model that has allowed some who would be in a gang to find another outlet. It would follow that Mar should work to support JROTC as a positive force for the community rather than expend time and effort to eliminate the program.

I understand Mar's attack on the JROTC is based on an amorphous, utopian, anti-military mindset in which the JROTC is seen as a recruitment source for naive kids. Let's give our students some credit for having judgment to determine their own destiny, even if some choose to join the military. The military has often been overlooked as an instrument to promote peace or to save lives when a natural disaster occurs, such as hurricane Katrina. It has also been a vehicle by which disadvantaged kids find gainful employment while serving our country in myriad ways and often acquiring life-long skills. As to Mar's anti-military stand, what an insult to all the good men and women who have served in the military and the many who gave their lives for our country. Our energies are better employed in efforts to reduce the inequalities and sufferings that give rise to the need for a military.
Margie Hom-Brown

Editor:
Your commentary "Save Valuable Youth Program" (Sunset Beacon, July 2008) was actually an editorial statement advocating specific action.

In my opinion, it is laudable to advocate for a cause. However, you offer the reader of your community newspaper language that appeals to the emotions and attacks the character of some school board members ("sneaky measure," "sleazy maneuvering," "cowardly vote," "willing to sell out"). That's rhetoric that diminishes your editorial.

In my opinion, the issue addressed by your editorial would be better served by a debate. You are part of the community media, right? If you want to change minds, debate an issue within the community and refrain from disparaging people who don't agree with you unless you think Rush Limbaugh has a good thing going. Juxtaposing real opposing points of view in your paper instead of putting down the opposition garners more respect for your newspaper and your cause.

In a debate, someone may point out that your editorial contains generalizations. For example, "student participants gain self respect and the confidence to become leaders in our military and our society at large" doesn't make sense. What sort of education or life experiences makes a leader? Taking a JROTC class? And the sentence, "The other 98 percent learn life skills that serve them well" is not a guarantee and is confusing. Are you suggesting a life skill which values blind obedience to authority without personal responsibility for ones' actions is a good thing?

In a debate, someone may want to know why students earn physical education credits for JROTC? Isn't this special treatment for a select group? Whose idea was it?

In my opinion, information about the history of the JROTC program in the SF School System might help a reader understand the issue. How and when did it start? Whose idea was it? What was the original purpose?

In my opinion, the fact that a measure to save JROTC seeks qualification for the November ballot is a good thing. However, who is going to educate citizens about the issue and what's really in the ballot measure? Civic-minded citizens (that includes students) need high-quality information to make a good decision. A debate that avoids personal attacks, simple generalizations and answers questions does just that and is the citizen thing to do.
Herb Mintz

Editor:
This is more than political. This is an anti-military action by the liberal SF School Board. Their argument is directed towards the obesity issue of the student population, saying since students are getting obese, we must get rid of JROTC and replace it with physical education classes.
It is a very weak argument.

When asked about the numbers of obese youth in the group that were in the JROTC group versus students in the physical education group, they didn't have the statistics. One does not exercise to lose weight; it is used for strength, for flexibility, for coordination and for learning about teamwork. Weight control is based on reduction of calories, changes in types of food and avoiding high-caloric snacking between meals.

The School Board is not interested in the kids and their weight. They are interested in getting rid of all traces of the military, no matter its negative effect on students who want the program.
Lucy Brown