A recent report released by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer brought to light surprising discoveries about the activities of the American military in our public schools. The catalyst for the report, entitled “We Want You(th),” was a Stuyvesant student, who brought this important issue to the attention of Mr. Stringer’s office. In addition to a survey of New York City high school students, the report includes model policies regarding military recruitment from around the nation, as well as recommendations on a New York City policy. Military recruitment in schools is a controversial issue, with some people believing that it should be banned altogether, and others simply advocating for different tactics. Military recruitment of high school students is a legal practice which should be allowed, but only under strictly enforced guidelines. These guidelines are already in place, but the means of enforcement have yet to be instituted.
Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to release students’ personal contact information (name, phone number, and address) to military recruiters unless the student specifically requests otherwise. However, principals are required to distribute information about students’ rights and “opt-out forms” that remain in effect through students’ entire high school career. These forms allow students to choose to not have their information given out by the school.
Investigations of recruiters’ tactics have yielded thousands of reports of illegal or inappropriate activities by military recruiters, both in and out of schools. A 2006 WABC News investigation revealed that recruiters allowed potential recruits to retake the Army’s drug test if they initially failed, and even provided advice on how long it takes for certain drugs to pass through your system.
In 2006, Congress called for an investigation into military recruiting tactics. The findings were startling: at least 6,600 allegations were made of recruiter wrongdoings in fiscal 2005 alone.
Recruiters are encouraged to use various tactics to find and recruit potential soldiers. The “School Recruiting Program Handbook,” a U.S. Army training manual for recruiters, provides insights into the methods they are encouraged to use. In addition to providing a detailed calendar of general school activities, the handbook explains how recruiters should integrate themselves into schools and school events. The manual tells recruiters “to encourage college-capable individuals to defer their college until they have served in the Army.” The Handbook also tells the specific methods of recruiters, such as “Know your student influences…. Some influential students such as the student president or the captain of the football team may not enlist; however they can and will provide you with referrals who will enlist. More importantly [sic] is the fact that an informed student leader will respect the choice of enlistment, in turn, future Soldiers feel good about their decision to join.”
Multiple memos from the Department of Education (DOE), including one as recently as January 2007, reminded principals to “ensure that all students currently enrolled in your school have received the opt-out letter.” It also stated that “recruiters should not be given any special privileges” and had to follow the same procedures as other visitors to the school.
The survey that was the basis of “We Want You(th)” was targeted towards the same demographics recruiters go after, minorities and schools with poorer student bodies. The results clearly show that the guidelines for recruitment are not being followed.
Forty percent of survey responders stated that their schools had not provided them with an opt-out form at the beginning of the year, and 33% said they were unsure if they had received a form. Of the 25% of students who had received an opt-out form, 34% said that no one from their schools had explained the form or their rights relating to military recruitment.
Department of Education rules clearly state that time intended for classroom instruction should not be used for recruiting, and that position is reiterated in a January 2007 memo. However, 21% of survey responders said that military recruiters used class times to make presentations, with older respondents having more time with recruiters.
Additionally, recruiters are supposed to have to the same privileges and access rights as colleges and job recruiters. However, the study shows that military recruiters are let into schools at least as often as all college and university recruiters combined.
Stuyvesant is not a school frequented by military recruiters. The few students that do pursue a career in the military often go to prestigious schools like West Point. While it is not as obvious as in other public schools, Stuy students’ information is still available to recruiters. Stuy is required, like all other schools, to distribute an opt-out form to students and inform them of their rights. Mr. Teitel said in response to an email inquiry, “This form is provided to all Seniors through Ms. Archie’s office.” Stuy has given out the forms to certain grades in the past, though they have not followed the policy of distributing the forms to all students.
This is an issue laden with controversy. Many people who hold anti-war views are morally opposed to the concept of military recruitment. For those who do not oppose it, there are more internal divisions, each raising a question: How much information should recruiters have access to? Should they have more privileges than college and job recruiters? Should schools promote the military as a viable future to students? While it may seem like a million miles away, the United States is involved in a war. The military is within their rights to want new recruits, but we are within ours to keep our information to ourselves.