JROTC follow up

In an earlier post I ranted about the San Francisco Board of Education's decision to phase the JROTC out of the SF Unified School District. Not being content with just blogging about it, I decided I would send a letter to the school board to express my displeasure. I CC'd Mayor Gavin Newsom because I knew he felt the same way I did.

On Nov 16, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Jrod wrote:
Dear SFUSD Board Members,

Your recent decision to phase out the JROTC program is a disgrace to our city, county, state and country.

I am a product of and a believer in California public schools. But as a soon-to-be parent who plans on raising a family within the boundaries of the SFUSD, your decision regarding the JROTC program makes me question your general competency and wisdom, and will surely give me serious reservations about enrolling my children in the SFUSD when the time comes.

You should have listened to Mayor Newsom on this matter. If your goal is to drive SF citizens away from the public school system, consider your mission accomplished.

Sincerely,
(jrod)

I truly did not expect to hear back from anybody, but about 2 weeks later, I had this reply from Dan Kelly, one of the members of the board who voted in favor of the phase out.

Dan Kelly wrote:

Mr Jrod,

Thank you for your comments. and for your interest in our schools. Though the volume of mail on this decision does not allow a detailed response, It might be helpful for you to know that this resolution was introduced in May 2006 and went through very extensive hearings, testimony and fact finding before coming to a vote on November 14th. That the vote was close reflects the mixed feelings that many in our community have about this program's presence in our schools. If Palo Alto or Walnut Creek don't have this military recruitment vehicle might you skip those school systems too?

Thank you for taking the time to write and be heard.

Thanks too for your personal support of JROTC.

Dan Kelly MD

San Francisco Board of Education

I was not sure why he would ask such a silly rhetorical question and thank me for my personal support of the program he'd opposed, and his tone seemed slightly condescending to me, so I replied:

Dr. Kelly,

Thank you for your reply.

I am not sure what Palo Alto and Walnut Creek BofE decisions have to do with the SFUSD decision, but I might skip those school districts as well if I ever put my family within their jurisdiction.

A visceral hatred of the institution charged with defending you and your nation, regardless of how you view their current deployment--or any other deployment for that matter--reveals a fundamental detachment from reality.

Of course, I was not privy to the very extensive testimony, hearings and fact finding missions you say the Board endured before putting it to a vote. As I understand it though, 800 signatures were all that it took to end a program that 1,600 young people chose to participate in on a voluntary basis. Sounds like tyranny of the minority to me. That is not a quality with which I want my children inoculated.

I would wish you good luck in your quest to render this city supine and indefensible; however, that would be suicide for my family and I.

Sincerely,
(Jrod)

It did not take long for him to shoot back the following:

Daniel Kelly wrote:

Well, you should do what you feel best, but your presumptions about my "hatreds" are your own. The decisions of other school boards are not relevant to ours, nor did we consider them. I asked you that question rhetorically because JROTC is distinctly rare in the more suburban, affluent school districts that are regarded as more desireable by some disaffected urbanites. Likewise, private schools costing $25,000+/year won't have such a program either. So the point was: Do they hate our nation too? I don't

DK

I was truly shocked that this sort of thinking was present among the policy makers of the school district where I hope to send my daughter someday.

Dr. Kelly,

Allow me to refresh your memory. The following three quotes were taken from the Chronicle article that drew my attention to the JROTC decision in the first place. If the reporter took anybody out of context, or was biased in any way, or did not capture the proper tone of the meeting, please correct me. After all, you were there.

(The Board's) position was summed up by a former teacher, Nancy Mancias, who said, "We need to teach a curriculum of peace."

"We don't want the military ruining our civilian institutions," said Sandra Schwartz of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization actively opposing JROTC nationwide. "In a healthy democracy ... you contain the military. You must contain the military."

And from you:

"It's basically a branding program, or a recruiting program for the military," Kelly said before the meeting.

These quotes are striking for at least two reasons. First, they reveal a visceral hatred of the U.S. military. Second and even more shocking, they reveal incredible naivety concerning our military's role in our society. Therefore, I stand by my presumption of your feelings toward our military.

Although you may disagree with my conclusion, you seem intent on trying to grant legitimacy to your decision by pointing out the JROTC policy of other school districts and private schools. I believe it is an article of faith amongst those who oppose the military that only poor people and those with no other choice fill the ranks of our armed forces. By that logic, allowing the JROTC in "suburban, affluent school districts that are regarded as more desirable by some disaffected urbanites" would go a long way toward spreading the burden of national defense more evenly across all classes, wouldn't you agree? Private schools, by definition, are free to do whatever they wish. So I am not sure why you bring them into your argument, other than as evidence to the wisdom of your decision.

I never said you, other school districts or private schools that do not allow the JROTC hate our nation, I said they hate our military. Please do not insult my intelligence by playing such silly word games.

The tone of your correspondence seems to be, "like it or leave it" when you say that I should do what I feel is best. I fail to see how that sort of attitude will help stem the outflow of "disaffected urbanites."

However, I do have a vote, and I do have a voice. Activism, being what it is in San Francisco, means these tools count.

Jrod

I have not heard from him since I sent that last email on December 7th.

I sent the exchange above to a local newspaper columnist who I knew would share my dismay at this school board decision:

Ms. Saunders,

No offense to your co-workers, but you seem to be one of the few Chronicle columnists who sees things clearly--that is, you say what I think. ;-)

After the B of E's recent decision to phase out the JROTC from the SFUSD, I wrote each of the board members a letter (below) to express my displeasure with their decision. I received a reply from Dr. Dan Kelly, and a short, civil email exchange followed.

I'm slated to be a first time parent in the next 2 months, so up until now I've not given much thought to the SFUSD or the people that make decisions at the top. After synthesizing what I think Dr. Kelly is telling me, I am quite shocked that such people are in positions that have so much influence over so many children.

I'm not sure why I am sending you this exchange really, other than for the reason that maybe somebody at the Chronicle is keeping a dossier on the lunatic thoughts of SF Board of Ed. members. If so, please pass this along.

I do enjoy your writing, keep up the good work.

Happy Holidays,
Jrod

Here's her reply:

Dear (jrod),

You have been busy. Good for you.

I am waiting for the moment when the board reconsiders the JROTC decision to write on this again. May that day come.

Dr. Kelly, of course, did not win re-election, so he won't be in a position to impose his views on S.F.'s children much longer. And as you note, at least he replied to you.

Thanks for the kind words. Happy holidays to you and yours.

DJS

I though that was pretty cool that she took the time to reply to me. Then a few weeks later I received the following email from the Mayor's office:

Dear (Jrod),

I apologize for the delay in responding to your message. Thank you
for writing me regarding your concerns about the Board of Supervisor's
resolution to abolish the ROTC Program in the San Francisco Unified
School District. I would like to take this opportunity to share
with you my opinion on this important issue. I too share your concerns
and oppose the resolution for the following reasons.

It does a disservice to families in San Francisco to eliminate a
program that benefits students in very practical ways because of an
ideological disagreement with the current leadership in Washington D.C.
Eliminating a program that is popular among many parents and students only
further alienates families from the public school system. The San Francisco
Unified School District does not provide students with sufficient
enrichment programs, and it makes little sense to eliminate an
entire program that receives significant funding from the federal
government.

Furthermore, San Francisco should not be identified with a lack of
respect for the service of men and women in uniform, and this resolution
would do just that. Additionally, this resolution would further
propagate the growing use of San Francisco values as a diminutive term.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me.

Sincerely,

Gavin Newsom
Mayor

I couldn't have said it better myself.