Sam Cook

Luke Niebler

ENG 102 AC06

Nov. 14, 2013

Ethical Concerns of Military Recruitment in Public School Systems

With the War on Terror raging vigorously since 2001, the war effort has claimed the

lives of thousands of American men and women. As it stands today, 48,430 Americans lay

dead or wounded as result of the combat theater (United States Military Casualties of War).

With this in mind, it is no surprise that military recruiters in schools have been met with

animosity from their concerned guardians. Any parent would be right to attempt to scare off

any person who means to place their children in harm’s way. Any reasonable person can see

the conflict of interest that exists when the educators who are charged with students’ well

being are allowing people into their school doors who fully intend to put young people into

dangerous, violent and potentially fatal combat environments.

George Orwell was once quoted saying that “people sleep peaceably in their beds at

night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf” (Grunt’s Military

Quotes). The fact of the matter is that at one point these “rough men” were once

impressionable teenage men and women. Many children in past generations had no choice

once the call to arms was sounded. Fortunately for the time being, this generation’s war-

fighters and the children of the future do have an opportunity to choose whether military

service is appropriate for them. This is also a day and age where college opportunities are
afforded to every student. War is brutal and primitive in nature, and with mothers and fathers

adamant in keeping their children from harm’s way. Military recruiters have become the

center of scrutiny and criticism over the years, and when analyzing their place in public high

schools, it is important to look at the argument as a whole. The parents of communities may

be outraged over allowing recruiters into schools, but it is not a new routine. Colleges and

universities display very similar tactics, but often go overlooked when placing blame. It is

comical how one can be invited with open arms while the other is shunned by the majority of

the public. However, with the country at war and involved in foreign strife for nearly a

decade the question must be asked, is military recruitment in public schools ethical, legal and

appropriate in the country’s public schools?

Consider the mismatch that young people are up against in the midst of any military

branch’s recruiter. Physical intimidation becomes a factor when standing in front of the

mythical G.I. Joe, and that’s just the start of it. All high school students have an ego and pride

(particularly the males in the presence of their peers). Some of these students lose their

practical train of thought and only look to distinguish themselves as the alpha-male in the

midst of one another which may cause them to make a decision that they may not otherwise

make under normal circumstances. This impulsive decision making is what recruiters prey on

in order to meet their quota, and they do have a definite quota that they must meet. These

recruiters do not sneak into the auditorium or career fair. Most would be shocked to know

that they are actually invited (Gibson, Arthur ).

Military recruiters are very much like sharks. They are very predatory by nature, and

are this way for professional survival. A recruiter who doesn’t meet numbers is just as useful
to the military as a broken rifle. Those who do not meet numbers do not last for long. Like

sharks, they smell blood in the water. The only difference is that the blood they smell is

anyone who cannot give them a definitive “no”. Recruiters in the military are required to

complete a seven week course prior to starting their mission (Hall, S, 2012). They are trained

as cutthroat salesmen, and once they hit the street they begin selling. These recruiters are

trained in communication, how to counter an argument, and taught to do whatever it takes. Is

it ethical? No, but it is effective. There is no argument for the results. However, how can a

student who can’t even legally vote be expected to stand against a service member and their

training background and make a clear headed decision that will ultimately impact the overall

direction of their lives whether they know it or not? There is no answer for that, because that

is not the military’s concern.

The negatives for this argument have been sufficiently noted. However, it would be an

injustice if this argument was concluded without looking subjectively at both sides. For that

reason we should look at perhaps the most obvious benefits of having military recruiters

allowed to be present in public schools. When dealing with the military, you cannot overlook

the benefits. Military benefits are virtually unrivaled in any career today. Active duty

personnel in the American armed forces are eligible for retirement after 20 years making

50% of their salary. Upon retirement, they are given medical, dental, and perks from the

Department of Veterans Affairs for life (Military Benefits). People who are in favor of

recruiting in schools would argue that failing to inform students of the benefits that the

military has to offer is outrageous in itself. They would wonder why should the location that

it takes place in have any weight in the debate.

 If the idea of someone persuading high school students to do something that they

wouldn’t do otherwise is so offensive, why does the school commit such behaviors

themselves? High school counselors actively participate in the career of the student after high

school. It is largely an afterthought that these counselors stress students applying to multiple

colleges to include desired schools and multiple “safety schools” (Ryan, Anne, 2010). These

applications will almost always carry a fee of $50 per school. Some schools even receive

large grants for placing a higher percentage of students into a secondary schooling program.

This seems to resemble the shark-like behavior that military recruiters are often ostracized

for. Perhaps this argument is simply a matter of perspective. To overprotective parents and

hippie teenagers, the act of military recruitment in schools could be an outrage. However, to

the military veteran or American patriot, the act of recruiting young people in public schools

is a necessary process required in replenishing the military ranks. That being said, there are

many people who participate in counter-recruitment.

Counter-recruitment is a strategy often used in order to show the people’s opposition

to war and military recruitment of any kind. Counter-recruitment is an attempt to prevent the

military recruiters from enlisting civilians into the military, particularly the vulnerable minds

of high school students. There are several methods that are very commonly utilized in a

counter-recruitment campaign, ranging from the political speech to picketing and direct

action. Such a campaign can also target the entities that are connected to the military, such as

the intelligence agencies, or private corporations affiliated with the military, especially those

with defense contracts.

 Most counter-recruitment work in the United States is simply focused at the policy

level of public school systems. This work is generally done by the parents and the

grandparents of school-aged children, and the most common activity is information and

advocacy with school officials (principals, school boards, etc.) and with the general

population in their local school areas. Counter Recruitment at the K-12 age group is

categorically different from other movements, since most of the students are underaged

minors and parents are their legal custodians and guardians, not the schools. The most

common policy goal is that the frequency of military recruiters' visits to public schools, their

locations in the schools, and that their types of activities be closely controlled and monitored

rather than unlimited. Many of the larger urban and inner city school districts have

implemented such guidelines since as early as 2001. Other goals have included "truth in

recruiting", that counselors or curriculum elements be implemented to address the deficiency

in high school students' understanding of war and the military life, rather than allowing

military recruiters to perform that role, which could be intimidating or stressful, putting the

student under pressure.

On high school campuses, counter-recruitment activists since 2001 have also focused

around a provision of the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires that high schools provide

contact and other information to the military for all of their students who do not opt out.

Counter-recruitment campaigns have attempted to change school policy to ban recruiters

regardless of the loss of federal funds, to be active about informing students of their ability to

opt out, and/or to allow counter-recruiters access to students equal to the access given to

military recruiters. These political campaigns have had some success, particularly in the Los
Angeles area, where one has been led by the Coalition Against Militarism in Our Schools,

and the San Francisco Bay Area. A simpler and easier, though perhaps less effective, strategy

by counter-recruiters has been to show up before or after the school day and provide students

entering or exiting their school with opt-out forms, produced by the local school district or by

a sympathetic national legal organization such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the

National Lawyers Guild.

Organizations which have attempted to organize such campaigns on a national scale

include A.F.S.C. and C.C.C.O., the Campus Antiwar Network (C.A.N.), and the War

Resisters League. Code Pink, with the Ruckus Society, has sponsored training camps on

counter-recruitment as well as producing informational literature for use by counter-

recruiters. (Solnit, Army of One, p.86) United for Peace and Justice has counter-recruitment

as one of its seven issue-specific campaigns. The Mennonite Central Committee is another

resource on the subject. Some of these organizations focus on counter-recruitment in a

specific sector, such as high schools or colleges, the National Network Opposing the

Militarization of Youth, founded in 2004, deals with the larger issue of militarism as it affects

young people.

Colleges receive tens of thousands from students over the life of their educational

path at their institution. These colleges actively seek out students through advertising and

college fairs. If college was flawless in benefiting the lives of those who attend, this

argument may be invalid. However when looking at the numbers, students may find

themselves asking which is the lesser of the two evils. Consider for a moment that only “56

percent of those who enroll in a four-year college earn a bachelor’s degree” (Reynolds). This
raises an eyebrow in itself. Next consider that the average college debt per student is

$24,000, and sadly that number appears to be on the rise due to rising college tuition, book

and room prices (Reynolds). By the time that you factor in the national unemployment

statistics that are so frequently criticized, there is constantly a reason for concern for college

hopefuls. There appears to be no sure thing anymore. Considering the benefits and job

security that the military has to offer versus the negatives presented in the argument against

college you would have to consider the college recruiters as being the ones whose place in

schools is questionable.

When dealing with the post-high school path of students, the choice should ultimately

be left up to the individual. Parents should have the ultimate influence over their children

when it comes to life after graduation. The schools which are publicly funded should

continue to allow both college and military recruiters to provide students with information.

The public might always be divided, but when it comes to a high school student’s decision

they have the overall choice to raise their hand in military service, sit in a college classroom,

or join the professional workforce as a productive member of society.

 Bibliography

Allison, Aimee; Solnit, David. "Army of None." Introduction. Army of None: Strategies to

Counter Military Recruitment, End War, and Build a Better World. New York: Seven

Stories, Print.

Gibson, Arthur. (January 30, 2009). Military Recruiters Invading High Schools. Helium.

Retrieved 9/6/2013 from http://www.helium.com/items/1318372-military-recruiters-

invading- high-schools

Military Benefits. (2012). Retrieved 9/7/2013 from http://www.militarybenefits.com/

military_active.html

Military Quotes. Grunt's Military. Retrieved 10/9/2013 from

http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/quotes.shtml.

Reynolds Lewis, Katherine. (2010). High College Dropout Rate Threatens U.S. Growth.

The Fiscal Times. Retrieved 9/6/2013 from http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/

Article 2010/10/28/High-College- Dropout-Rate-Threatens-US-Growth.aspx

Ryan, Anne. (2010). Coaching Can Help Qualified Kids Aim Higher. USA Today. Retrieved

9/7/2013 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-06-30-

betteradvising30_CV_N.htm.

United States Military Casualties of War. (2012). Retrieved 9/7/2013 from http://

www.archives.gov/research/military/casualty-statistics.html