&lt previous

Top

next &gt

We Almost Won!

The 1988-89 Student Campaign to End Military Weapons Research at the University of Massachusetts - Amherst

By Randy Viscio
Pages 10-11

In 1988, 6 students calling themselves People for a Socially Responsible University (PSRU) began investigating military research contracts at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. What they didn't know was that they were about to begin a process that would eventually lead to the largest protests the University had experienced since the Vietnam Era. By the time it was over, there were 500 students and community members arrested, 6 building occupations, a hunger strike, a jury trial and, later, the resignation of the Chancellor. More importantly, this small group of students managed to expose (however briefly) the insidious partnership between their University and the military-industrial complex.

The students began by splitting up the tasks that would allow them to attain information about UMASS' partnership with the Department of Defense (DoD). They filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for all DoD and Department of Energy (DoE) research conducted at UMASS. They approached UMASS Office of Research and Development to attain copies of the University's contracts.

Here, they hit their first of many roadblocks set up by the UMASS Administration. At first, administrators balked at allowing them to see the contracts, then, under the threat of a lawsuit, allowed them to get copies of the contracts- but not before they attached high fees for the copying. As the FOIA requests began coming back, they enlisted the help of willing science faculty to help them interpret the research projects identified in the contracts.

What they found, though not uncommon for a public university, was, nonetheless, disturbing. The University was home to the most highly funded research in basic biological "defense" on Anthrax and Dengue Fever. The University's faculty and students were conducting research on the "Autonomous Land Vehicle" which is synonymous for "machines whose killing ability is directed by remote control." There was research being done in conjunction with other universities, such as Carnegie Mellon, on "tripod" or spider-like robotics that were (and are) targeted by the military to be our armed force of the future.

Once the UMASS students' research was done, they arranged for a reporter from the local independent newspaper to do an article on their findings. This was an important step in the process. When the article came out it raised eyebrows at the school and in the community. The seeds of knowledge were planted and a succinct outline of the military weapons issue was created.

Between the time when the article was published and the first building occupation, the PSRU group held meetings and conducted guerilla theatre on the campus. The organization held a mock marriage between the DoD and the University (with the Grim Reaper serving as the Justice of Peace) and ran teach-ins. Still, support was peripheral and a few students in the group decided to try something different to bring attention to the issue.

On the afternoon of April 19, 1989, FOIA requests and DoD contracts in hand, a few members of PSRU gathered with about 20 other students from the Central American Solidarity Association (CASA) at the entrance to the UMASS Administration Building. There were many curious people, like me, on the edges. I attended the rally primarily to support opposition to our foreign policy in Central America.

However, when one of the PSRU members stood up on a wall and identified the connections between the UMASS Board of Regents (corporate CEO's of Raytheon, IBM, Honeywell, etc.), the DoD and the University Administration, I was engaged. For the first time it was clear that a group of students had done their homework. They had evidence. They had facts. They had made a logical "request": that the University end its love affair with the DoD by ending the military research and looking for more socially responsible ways to fund the University. They called it "Economic Conversion." The consequences of not doing this would be higher tuitions, unaffordable programs, reduction in admissions, reduction in student- body diversity and the replacement of liberal arts education with a quasi-military high technology education. And sadly enough, almost 16 years later I can tell you…that is exactly what happened!

But on this day we were optimistic and we set about trying to stop this huge, monolithic juggernaut of a University controlled by the purse strings of High Tech Corporations, greedy businessmen and military contractors from flushing the possibilities of a better University down the toilet.

We marched from the Administration building to the Student Union where some guerilla theater was performed. Then we marched on to the Graduate Research Center where another PSRU member made an impassioned speech and then ran into the Laboratory building where much military research was being conducted. Many of us followed and found ourselves occupying the Microwave Sensing Laboratory. It was amazing. An argument ensued between a PSRU member and the graduate students in the lab. The student researchers weren't even aware that they were conducting research for the military. When we showed them the DoD contracts listing their professor's name and the type of research being done, they hastily retreated from the lab.

By 6pm, out of nearly 30 people who entered the lab, only six of us remained. We were determined to make a statement. The University police tried numerous tactics to get us to leave. They threatened suspension, expulsion, arrest, they said we could stay the night and then rescinded the offer. What we wanted was a meeting with the Chancellor. They said the Chancellor would meet us in the morning. Not good enough. We stayed there in the lab while the University cops mocked us, made fun of us, threatened us, and made us use a trash can to urinate in. Finally, they had enough of us.

One by one we were removed. Several of us were dragged out. I was the last to go. By the next afternoon, about a hundred students turned out for a PSRU meeting to discuss the next step. The Chancellor refused to meet with the group.

Without much dissention we agreed to occupy another building. On April 24, 1989 we held a rally and nearly one hundred students took over the University's Memorial Hall.

We made our demands and asked for a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss them. He again refused. The University cops called in the state police and they surrounded the building- attack dogs, helicopters, and all. We had an ongoing battle with them to get food and water into the building. A few skirmishes broke out. Eventually, 60 people inside the building and 40 outside were arrested and hauled off to the UMASS stadium for processing. One student who refused to give his name was put in jail. The rest of us were issued tickets to appear in court. The next meeting of the group attracted almost two hundred students.

The Chancellor agreed to hold an "open forum" in the Student Union to discuss the issue of military research. Really, this was a ploy by the Chancellor to discuss the issue with everyone EXCEPT the students who had done the research and had the most information. The forum was ridiculous. About 500 students got in the door and probably 200 more were outside. The Chancellor made the usual comments about how the university could not put up with civil disobedience even though they lauded the students for being so idealistic, etc. He took questions only from students who were not involved with the PSRU group and played the whole thing off like it was some kind of joke.

There were more organizational meetings with about 200 students committed to direct action.

The University's response to the call for Economic Conversion continued to be meaningless so we kept up the pressure. On May 3, 1989 a PSRU rally at the student union attracted about 500 students. We marched on the Graduate Research Center and took over the offices of the Dean of Graduate Research and again called for Economic Conversion. Again, the University Chancellor refused to meet with the group and, instead, began calling the parents of students who were involved.

The Director of Public Safety again attempted various tactics to get students to leave the Research Center. He had the university police maintain sleep deprivation tactics throughout the night and went back and forth between saying the students were about to be arrested and that they would not be arrested.

Finally, at noon the next day, May 4, 1989, after a crowd of about 1,000 students had gathered outside the building, the State Police arrived with a large bus and arrested the 100 students occupying the building. As these arrests were happening a rogue band of students went and began a sit-in at the Chancellor's office. At this point, the University did something it had never done before…it stated that the University was under a kind of "State of Emergency" and that any student occupying a building would be subject to immediate arrest and expulsion. The students left the Chancellor's office feeling that they had made their point.

Support began to pour in from surrounding schools and communities. The group received letters of support from national and international organizations. Numerous faculty members from all programs issued petitions of support and called on the University to meet with the members of PSRU. Still, the Chancellor declined.

Several things happened simultaneously the week of May 13, 1989 that finally brought the meeting that we were looking for. First, a group of seven students decided to go on a hunger strike until the University agreed to meet. Second, many documents taken by students who occupied the Graduate Research Center were published in local and school newspapers. These documents were a series of letters between the Dean of Graduate Research and various military officials. The letters helped further expose the seemingly too cozy relationship. Third, a group of community members took over the Chancellor's office in support of the student protests because the University could not "expel" them. Fourth, a Teach- In was held that pitted members of the University Science Faculty conducting military research in a debate against faculty members and students supportive of Economic Conversion. As the Teach-In progressed it became clear that many of the science faculty at the University did not even know that their contracts originated with the DoD.

With two buildings occupied, seven students on hunger strike and growing knowledge about the issue, the Chancellor finally agreed to meet. The Chancellor agreed to form a committee made up of students, faculty and community members that would consider the concept of Economic Conversion. But the Chancellor knew that graduation was a few weeks away and that students would be leaving for the summer. This being the case, he waited until after graduation to form the committee. He installed none other than the Dean of Graduate Research, who had the power to remove whatever he wanted from the final report as the Chair of the committee. At the same time, he gave the committee no binding power. The end result?

Epilogue: Within a year after the protests to end military research at the University and begin a process of Economic Conversion to socially responsible research and funding, the University built a huge High-Tech center, raised student tuitions and canceled numerous humanities and arts courses. This has been the trend not only at UMASS but all around the country. Today, UMASS is a great place to go if you want to make weapons and pay high tuition with the hope of getting into a high-paying high-tech job with a defense contractor like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon.

The Chancellor resigned and went to Washington DC. Students at UMASS went on a 20,000-person campus wide strike (organized by PSRU organizers) because of tuition increases. But eventually PSRU members went their own way as life (and the stress of doing this kind of organizing) got in the way of what they had started. Only one of the original organizers, Jonathan Leavitt, continued to organize around other anti-corporate issues.

Randy Viscio is an alumnus of the Student Environmental Action Coalition. He can be reached at rviscio at aol dot com.

Lessons Learned

1. Do your homework by filing FOIA requests and securing copies of University Contracts.

    

2. Get friendly science and economic faculty or others to assist you in interpreting the documents. Publish your findings.

    

3. Know your University: If they will talk and work with you that's great. If you know they won't, don't waste
   time attempting more than cordial dialogue. Know who is on your Board of Regents (or similar body) and identify them. They are most likely aligned with big corporations that benefit from the cheap labor of students.

    

4. Educate the student body through news publications, teach-ins, debates, guerilla theatre and rallies.
   
    
5. Timing is Everything: Initiate any direct actions early in the school year to ensure that you can maintain pressure throughout the year.

    

6. Secure MEANINGFUL concessions: Committees or decisions that have no "binding" power are relatively meaningless.

    

7. Use the threat or reality of lawsuits to gain concessions.

    

8. Be prepared to be in it for the long haul and pass your knowledge onto others. This is an ongoing process that will last longer than the time you are in school.

    

9. Discuss how you will deal with all the dynamics that will come into play when larger numbers of students decide to get involved, particularly if you have successful direct actions. Stay the course on your issue and don't get pulled off the subject by people who want to go in other directions. Don't be afraid to ask people who are detracting for your issue to leave the group but also have an open mind.

    

10. Be willing to get arrested for your beliefs. Five or six students getting arrested can (and usually will) lead to large-scale involvement in your cause by those who would otherwise sit on the sidelines.

     

11. Develop a good balance of moral and economic arguments with the understanding that most people will respond to economic arguments over moral ones: remember, we live in a capitalist economy and we are brought up on a healthy dose of "money over morals."

     

12. Stay away from "killing is wrong" arguments. Most people don't agree.

     

13. Describe for people the kinds of weapons that are being developed and how those weapons kill people. They will make their own decision about whether or not that is something they want at their University.

     

14. Describe for people how funding from the military is not the only option and offer alternatives. At a minimum, argue that the University has the resources to seek other options and that you would be more than happy to be involved in that process if the University is serious about change.

     

15. There are plenty of arguments you can make about the amount of money being spent on war and weaponry as opposed to rising tuition.

     

16. Argue that students are unknowingly conducting research for the military. Most students and even some faculty have no clue that their research is funded by the military. Make them think about it.

 

&lt previous

Top

next &gt

The Williams Social Choice Fund

Excerpted from Investing in Social Change: A Student Handbook on Community Investment by Colleges and Universities

Produced By Equity Trust, Inc.
Page 12

It took an intense two-year campaign, initiated by students and eventually joined by faculty, staff, parents, and alumni, but, in October 2001, Williams College finally announced the creation of a socially responsible investment fund, ten percent of which is committed to community investments.

The initiative to bring socially responsible investing to Williams began in the fall of 1999 when a handful of students began researching the companies in the college‘s stock portfolio and became concerned at what they saw. One of those students recalls:

"When we got the College to release its portfolio of stock holdings, we saw that Williams had substantial investments in Phillip Morris, GE, and other companies with notoriously bad social and environmental behavior. We felt that by holding such stock, the college was supporting the activities of those corporations, which in some cases meant advertising cigarettes to kids, producing military weapons, and polluting the nearby Hudson and Housatonic Rivers with PCBs. Discovering the contents of the portfolio made it clear to us that Williams' investments were perhaps the most substantial and direct way in which the college was involved in many of the social and environmental problems that we were concerned about."

In addition to questioning the college‘s complicity in unsavory components of the global economy, the students began raising questions about what responsibility Williams, as a very wealthy institution, had to the depressed local community of Northern Berkshire County in Massachusetts and other communities like it. Thus, the students made community investment a central component of their campaign in spite of significant resistance to it on the part of the college.

After a process of self-education and some outreach, the students initiated conversations with the administration and trustees. These meetings, however, made it clear that the college was not amenable to a wholesale change in its investment policy. So the small group of students that had formed around this issue came up with the more modest proposal of creating a separate fund that would be invested in a socially responsible manner (partly in screened mutual funds and partly in community investments) and that would provide socially and environmentally concerned alumni with the opportunity to have their gifts invested in a way that was consistent with their principles. Students presented this proposal to the college in Spring 2000, but administrators made it clear that they were not willing to have a separately managed fund within the endowment.

Confronted with this definitive no, the students eventually decided that, instead of repeatedly asking the college to do something it didn‘t want to do, they would try a different tack. With only a few weeks left in the school year, students, with the help of Equity Trust, decided to create their own independent fund outside of the college and collect donations for it from students, faculty, parents, and alumni who supported the idea of a social investment fund. The 2000 Fund would accept contributions and invest them in Equity Trust‘s community development loan fund. Equity Trust agreed to hold and invest the 2000 Fund donations and send the returns from these investments to Williams, while keeping the fund‘s principal until the college agreed to create its own socially responsible fund.

To advertise the 2000 Fund, students wrote mass-emails to students and alumni, tabled in public spaces, wrote columns in the college paper, got an article written about the fund in the local newspaper, and generally asked people to make donations and write a letter or email of support to the college. Many of the donations were small - often just the pocket change of students - but a few parents and alumni made significant gifts to the fund. In the end, however, it was not the size of the fund (a mere $1,600), but the breadth of the support (over 130 donors and many more supportive letters and emails) and the sense that the fund was interfering with the college‘s source of revenue that made the strategy effective.

While certain elements of the college administration were angry with this move, they eventually agreed to negotiate with the students. The independent fund had given the students a kind of leverage that they had not had before. It was no longer the students saying, "we want you to do this,", it was the students now saying, "we‘re doing this, how are you going to respond." Faced with a new alternative fund that threatened to draw away support from the college‘s usual fundraising - and a group of students committed to keeping it there for however long it might take - the college decided to come back to the negotiating table.

In Spring 2001, the students launched another organizing effort. First, they put together a panel on socially responsible investing with experts in the field. Following this, they started a campaign to get petition signatures and pledges of financial support to the 2000 Fund or an equivalent fund. Over three hundred people signed pledges, which were then presented to the trustees along with the fund proposal at a meeting with students. By the time the meeting came, the students had found an important ally in the college treasurer and had gotten the college‘ s new president to support their effort, at least in principle. At the meeting itself, the finance committee of the trustees seemed to consider the proposal more seriously than they had in the past. However, in the end, the organizers left - and some graduated - without an answer.

Over the course of that summer, students continued to work with the college treasurer who helped them amend the proposal in a way that addressed some of the lingering concerns of the trustees without undermining the students‘ goals. The treasurer was then able to get the proposal on the agenda of the board‘s Fall meeting in October 2001. Finally, at that Fall meeting, after two years of outreach, organizing, fundraising and multiple rounds of negotiation, the Finance Committee of the Trustees approved the idea and agreed to create the Social Choice Fund at Williams.

The bulk of the Social Choice Fund is invested in a socially screened mutual fund that excludes corporations responsible for environmental degradation, human rights abuses, weapons manufacturing, discriminatory employment practices, unsafe working conditions, exploitative treatment of indigenous peoples, animal cruelty, or the production of harmful products such as tobacco. When the fund grows to a certain size, ten percent will be invested with Community Development Financial Institutions to provide loans to projects responding to the needs of low-income communities. For these community investments, priority will be given to projects in the Berkshire region where Williams is located.

Reflecting on the College‘s decision, Becky Sanborn, one of the student leaders, says, "Williams College and countless other academic institutions across the country already contribute greatly to society by educating future leaders and responsible citizens. The creation of the Social Choice Fund is an important step for Williams as it works to become a responsible citizen itself."

For more information, visit www.equitytrust.org.

 

&lt previous

Top

next &gt

JROTC

What the Hell is It? And, What Does it Want?

By Kevin Ramirez
Page 13

What is JROTC?

Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps is a military program, which offers military courses at high schools. It is used as a recruitment tool to get young people into the military. JROTC is a high school version of the college ROTC program. The high school version of ROTC, unlike what the name suggests, doesn't train students to be officers. Students completing JROTC begin as E4's, the lowest rank in the military.

Who does JROTC target? Why?

JROTC mainly targets schools in areas with a potential for military recruitment, mainly in poor areas - "particularly in inner cities and the focus of the expansion was to be on - I hesitate to use the term at-risk kids, but kids who would otherwise be called at-risk" (Tom Wilson, deputy assistant secretary of the Army outlining Colin Powel's JROTC plan).

Young people in the hood are targeted because their lives are not valued by the US Government. The military needs people to "fight and win wars" (Vice President Dick Cheney). If kids from the hood could be used for this purpose then it helps those who wage war.

How many high schools have a JROTC program?

Each division of the military has its own JROTC. Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of JROTC programs more than doubled, from 1,600 to 3,500 nationwide.

What is the JROTC mission?

"To motivate young people to be better citizens" = To recruit and indoctrinate.

JROTC is "one of the best recruitment programs we could have." (Defense Secretary William Cohen, 1999). 40% of the military's yearly recruits comes from JROTC. That's a lotta people.

"I'll admit, the armed forces might get a youngster more inclined to enlist as a result of Junior ROTC." (Colin Powell).

Brutality, injuries, gangs, shooting incidents: all have been documented in connection with JROTC units across the country. At a time when we're fighting to get guns out of our schools, many JROTC programs have "marksmanship programs" - teaching students to assemble, load, aim, and shoot guns within our public schools.

How the hell does JROTC get in a high school in the first place?

Two major ways are:

1) A school (the higher ups in the school - principal, guidance counselor, tightassed teachers, and the school board. It could also be some parents, church folk, community peeps fed up with the violence, disciplinelessness or shumthin in the school) fills out an application for establishing a JROTC. The idea bounces around the school administration - key school players. It then goes to the school board for a vote.

2) The Pentagon targets a school district where they think they can get recruits. Since they have mad loot, they have interceptor officers stationed in different parts of the country who kick it to the principal, school board, dean, counselor, teachers, parents, students, whoever. The idea bounces around the school administration - key school players. It then goes to school board for a vote.

How does JROTC end up staying once it gets in?

Support from viewers like you. Each year JROTC needs to have either 100 students enrolled or 10% of the student body population.

JROTC needs the support of teachers, students, administrators, parents and community folk. Supporting something like JROTC doesn't mean waving a big ol' JROTC flag. Most of the time it means not saying anything against JROTC - JROTC, like the military, thrives on submission; silent support.

How do they sucker people into feeling like they need a JROTC in their school?

"Respect," "discipline," "an alternative to the violence on the streets" are all bait used to lure folks to feeling like they need a JROTC in their schools. It often works with parents and teachers and some students who may be sick of the violence. But when was the last time you heard that the military was teaching people about peace? To repeat the brutally honest quote (and the truth hurts): "The military is not a job training program. The purpose of the military is to fight and win wars." (Dick Cheney)

"JROTC is a great program that boosts high school completion rates, reduces drug use, raises self-esteem, and gets these kids (who the hell is he calling "these"?) firmly on the right track." (George Bush Sr. Aug. 24, 1992)

Who's paying for JROTC?

You are. So is your mama and anyone else in your family above 18 if they work. Between 50%-75% of the money to run JROTC comes from your school. The other half comes from the Pentagon, that is, tax dollars that people in your family and community are paying.

How much does JROTC cost?

A JROTC unit on average costs roughly $76,000. Running a unit can easily cost double and sometimes triple this.

School districts nationwide spent an estimated $222 million in local taxes on JROTC instructor costs alone during the 1998-1999 school year, while the Department of Defense contributed an additional $167.8 million.

"Pentagon funding is expected to rise more than 50%, from $215 million last year to $326 million by 2004." (TIME, Sunday, Feb. 24, 2002)

How else could money for JROTC be used?

With $75,000 you can get an SAT course going in a school, with an SAT instructor, SAT texts and prep courses. You can get a job placement center going, hooking kids up with part-time gigs and full-time gigs in the summer. You can get a production studio, where kids could learn how to produce, make beats, instrumentals, loop, etc. and record their own music. You can get a hot magazine going. You can get a video production/filmmaking class going. You can have kids take field trips.

Get involved with the ROOTS campaign to get rid of JROTC. Contact ROOTS (212)228-0450 or roots@rootsnet.org

 

&lt previous

Top

next &gt

Demilitarizing an Urban Inner City High School

What Does it Take?

By Arlene Inouye
Pages 14-15

The efforts of ordinary youth and adults can make a BIG difference in changing the militarism of our schools. How? Let me give some examples from my experience at Theodore Roosevelt High School in East Los Angeles, the school where I teach.

Roosevelt, the second largest high school in the nation, has 5,200 year-round students. It is located in a poor working class neighborhood of 98% Latin American descent, the majority from Mexico. Roosevelt is known for its traditions, especially its long-standing football rivalry with another East Los Angeles school. The military has also been a tradition at Roosevelt where the Junior Reserves Officer Training Corp (JROTC) has had a presence on campus since around 1926. Prior to 2003, the school was known as being the number one campus for Marine recruitment, but the efforts of ordinary youth and adults have changed that.

How is militarism manifested at Roosevelt? Let us count the ways…

1) On-Campus Military Recruiters

Until 2003, military recruiters in uniform from the Army, Navy, Marines, and air force had free access to the campus. They talked to students between classes, during lunch, and even made classroom presentations. There is a great disparity regarding the presence of recruiters at different schools in the district - from a few times a year at some schools to nearly everyday at others. Comparing poor, minority schools to rich, whiter schools shows the "poverty draft"- the intense recruiting the military does in working class Latino and African American communities in the inner city. For every college counselor at Roosevelt, there were FIVE military recruiters. Their purpose is to sell the military by promising college financial aid and other incentives. And unfortunately for many who grow up with video games, heroic images of war, and a family tradition of military service, it's an easy sell. 37 percent of first time enlistees are students 17 and 18 years of age.

Counter-recruitment Actions

In 2003, the Leadership Council of Roosevelt limited the number of times the military recruiters can be on campus to about 4 times a year. The Council also no longer allows military presentations during class time due to concerns regarding student achievement and testing. With the approval of the administration, and using the equal access law, a group of students, teachers, school staff, and community organizations presented "Options for Youth." Students in the MEChA club as well as school staff passed out brochures and flyers such as "What you should know before you enlist" and talked and listened to whoever was willing. We also had spoken word artists read letters from the soldiers and discuss alternatives.

2) No Child Left Out of the Military

A provision of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, Bush's education bill, requires that school districts release private student directory information (names, addresses, and telephone numbers) or risk losing federal funds. The only way to prevent the military recruiters from getting personal information is for the student or parent to sign an "opt-out" statement requesting that personal information be withheld from the military.

NOTE: on page 32 you will find an "opt-out" form in both Spanish and English. If you would like recruiters to leave you alone, clip out the form and have your parent or guardian fill it out and return the completed form to the school administration. The 62,800 juniors and seniors in the Los Angeles Union School District (LAUSD) who received the mailed "opt-out" forms by the District, had an abysmal 2% return rate. An informal poll at Roosevelt indicated that most students (and adult staff) knew nothing about it.

Arlene Inouye is co-chair of the Human Rights Committee of United Teachers Los Angeles and coordinator of the Coalition Against Militarism in our Schools (CAMS).

Counter-recruitment Actions

The Coalition Against Militarism in our Schools (CAMS), comprised of family members and school staff, has a Student Education Campaign that includes information about opt-out and military recruiting. Students taking the lead in this campaign, along with adult supporters, strategize about how to inform their specific communities. There will be a youth rally, with literature and other resources made available. In addition, we have spoken to the Board of Education and presented a series of suggestions for proactive communication and outreach strategies. We hope the results will be evident this year, and are working to repeal the Act.

3) Junior Reserves Officer Training Corp (JROTC) Classes

The purpose of JROTC is to "facilitate recruiter access to cadets in JROTC program and to the entire student body." In LAUSD, there are 30 high schools that offer JROTC as a physical education elective at a cost of over $3 million. The 6,000 students enrolled in the JROTC classes come from predominately poor and working class communities of Latinos and African-Americans. At Roosevelt and across the city, students are often involuntarily placed into JROTC because of a lack of physical education electives. Even when students ask to be changed, they remain in JROTC for months. Why? Is it because there are not enough physical education classes to which to transfer them in these overcrowded schools? Why is JROTC expanding nationally, across the district, and at Roosevelt, while other classes have been slashed or received reduced funding?

Counter-recruitment Action

We have signed petitions to axe JROTC programs, presented concerns to the Board of Education, documented cases on students involuntarily placed into the class and cases in which students have been misinformed about the program. We have distributed literature and facts about the program (see www.militaryfreeschools.org)

4) Military culture

The military has infiltrated our schools in so many subtle ways, including the visible display of military mottos and trophies in the school, the distribution of free items to students (key straps, calendars, pens, mugs, sweat bands, etc.), and MTV-style commercials endlessly advertising the military on Channel One, a television "station" that many schools are required to play in exchange for loaning TVs and VCRs to poor schools.

 

8 Actions for Students

1. Talk to peers about war, US militarism, and their consequences and costs. Read, Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives us Meaning, and Addicted to War, by Joel Andreas.

2. Ask your teachers for diverse perspectives on war, for debate and discussion. Suggest that teachers invite veterans, and others with personal first hand accounts (i.e. Veterans Speakers Project).
3. Engage in critical thinking regarding what you see and hear from the media.
4. Learn about the Opt Out provision of the No Child Left Behind Act. Distribute opt out forms at school, in the community, and public places. Find out about national campaigns for coordinated actions.
5. Talk to your parents, relatives, neighbors, and community about militarism. You can also speak to parent groups, churches, and other organizations. Never underestimate the power of youth.
6. If your school has a JROTC program, find out if students are being involuntarily placed in it, circulate petitions and ask for alternative programs such as additional physical education alternatives and service learning projects.
7. Organize around military recruiters on campus. You have a legal right to provide an alternative perspective. Pass out flyers, set up a table and request equal opportunities. You can download brochures from: www.comdsd.org, www.afsc.org, www.objectors.com, among other websites. Join student clubs on your campus such as MEChA, Peace Clubs, Students of Color, or form your own club.
8. Organize and determine your priorities, and if possible link with other student groups and organizations in your communities.

You, the students, are the ones who can make the most impact. You can reach out to your peers in ways that no one else can. Show us the power and wisdom of youth. Show us that you are smarter than those who want to use your lives to support war and a militaristic way of life.

 

&lt previous

Top

next &gt

Marine Resists War Machine

Sentenced to 6 Months in Military Prison

Page 16

Stephen Funk, 21 at the time of this interview, self-identifies as gay and "mixed race...I'm Filipino and Chinese; my dad's Irish and Native American. Stephen refused to deploy when his Marine Reserve Corps unit was mobilized for active duty in Iraq, making him the first conscientious objector imprisoned for refusing to fight the Iraq War. Instead, he engaged in anti-war work. After 47 days, he turned himself in. The Marine Corps promised it would quickly process his claim as a conscientious objector. Instead, the Corps court-martialed Stephen, convicting him of unauthorized absence (a higher charge of desertion didn't stick), and sentenced him to six months in prison and a bad-conduct discharge. In March 2004, Stephen was released from his six-month sentence in military prison at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and returned home.

What effect did military recruiters have on your decisions, what tactics did they use to appeal to you?

I was in a really low, vulnerable time in my life, and I think recruiters know how to target people like that because they are more susceptible to joining. My recruiter encouraged me to come in and talk about what type of things I can learn from being in the military, and it still wasn't working. He invited me to go along on these trips that they had and because I was feeling a sense like I didn't belong, didn't have a direction, those were the things that he talked about the most. You get a sense of belonging, you're part of the team. I went to these places and they were trying to make me feel part of the team. Also, the recruiter tells people what [others] will say when you tell them you've joined the military. I didn't talk to my family about it because I was depressed, and I didn't tell them until two weeks before. But in a way my recruiter really encouraged me not to talk about it very much with people... "they are gonna discourage you from doing it, they'll say, well that's not really you, that's not what you're really like." He was trying to make it seem like it was my decision to begin with, that I made a good decision, and that I should stay with that feeling.

What was it like, being gay in the military?

When people asked me in boot camp if I was gay, I didn't say "no," you know. I was just like, "well, I'm not gonna say." Even if I didn't say it, everybody thought I was gay, and I didn't try to act straight or anything. And even though [they're] really not supposed to, drill sergeants referenced it. One time there was a guy, the platoon leader, who was a recruit like everybody else. He was supposed to get everybody out of the chow hall - that's like the cafeteria - and I had gotten there last, so I was still hungry. I wasn't gonna leave, I was being defiant. So the drill sergeant says to this guy, "Oh look, [you] can't even scare the limp-wristed recruit from San Francisco into getting out." There was other stuff, there was stuff against Asians. And the two Asian recruits in our platoon, were the "laundry recruits" - you know like the Chinese laundry [stereotype]. So first [the drill sergeant's] like, "Let me see where my Chinese recruits are at, let me try to figure out who is gonna be laundry recruits." No one raised their hands, and then he said, "OK, Asian." There were two of us, so we were the laundry recruits. And it was weird, there's so much of that stuff that you start forgetting it, because it just seems so normal [that you forget that it hurts]. Boot camp is a normalization of violence and hate. Everyone goes through a process of dehumanization, where they hate themselves and they hate everybody, so [the soldiers] won't feel so bad when they have to kill [others], or they won't feel so bad when they have to hate "the enemy."

At what point in boot camp did you realize that you didn't want to be there, that you started thinking about doing something about it?

One time, when we were shooting rifles, I shot "expert" and I'd never shot a gun before. And the person scoring me said on my card that I had an attitude. And I don't know what he means … so I asked him. That was weird in itself because you never challenge authority, but I asked him, I said, "What do you mean, I have an attitude? I shot well, didn't I?" And he goes, "In a real life situation you wouldn't score as well." I say, "You're right, I think killing is wrong, I don't want to kill. I don't want to be a part of that, I would not shoot." It was like I had actually vocalized what I had been thinking. And at that point, it's sort of like a "coming out of the closet" moment. It's a realization [that] you just said it, you can't take it back. After that I was like "Wow!" It was a relief, but it was also hard because I had to actually deal with the fact that I was a hypocrite. I'll just admit it. , if you can.

Would you comment on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"

I think ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"] is an awful policy, because it perpetuates anti-gay sentiment, it helps people hate gay people. [But] I don't really advocate gay people serving in the military, because I don't believe in the military mission as it is now. I think that if they just lifted ["Don't Ask, Don't Tell"] right now, the way things are, I think it would [still] be really bad for gay people in the military. Unless they unteach homophobia, and unteach the hatred toward gay people that they do teach in boot camp, unless they have something like that implemented as well, I don't think it's safe.

What advice would you give to other young folks, especially queer youth, who might be interested in joining the military or are currently serving?

As far as queer people, especially, this is what I would say to people that are gay or a minority or female or oppressed in other ways: Think about really what you are, what the military does, and how you are helping to perpetuate a bad situation for your people here at home, and who is benefiting from it. Who is benefiting from it are usually the people that are directly oppressing you. And that is why I would encourage people to think about it. I would also encourage people not to join if they are in a depression, if they are joining because they want to escape something. [I would encourage people not to join if] they are joining because they want money for school, [because] you don't get very much money. [The military is] a culture of non-thinking, it's a culture that's violent, it's a culture of aggression, it's a situation that promotes alcoholism, and things like rape often occur because of that.

What was it like to decide to go against the U.S. military?

It's obviously made it harder for me, but I'm glad I did. It wasn't something that I wanted to think about for the rest of my life, knowing I was part of the invasion of Iraq. I was extremely oppressed by being in the military, being gay, and I was oppressed because I didn't go along with the program, and I was punished for that. And I think it is easier when you've experienced it, it gives you more momentum, something like that. Yeah, I'm glad I did it.

 

&lt previous

Top

next &gt

Intelligence in higher education ain't what it used to be

By Zafar S. Shah
Page 18

"First, the government treats us like terrorists, and then to make matters even worse, the university asks us to pay for our own surveillance."

George Liu, UMass-Amherst student

In the mid-90s, an idea was stirring in Congress. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing showed that terrorists could use student visas to enter the country. To counter such abuse of visas, some thought the government could create an electronic tracking system to track student visa holders. In 1996 a pilot system was developed, but higher education officials deemed it unwarranted and too intrusive. With support in Washington waning, the pilot didn't go anywhere. Until September 11, 2001.

Word on the street was that if a dude looked foreign, he could be Al qaeda. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in Congress. They knew the real threat wasn't Mid-East students. It was mid-term elections. Within a few weeks of the attacks, House and Senate leaders showed their due patriotism (i.e. blanket support for the Bush Administration) in approving the USA PATRIOT Act, a constitutionally unsound bill that created the Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) - a $36 million dollar web-based database that would store up-to-date info on all international students in the US. Available in real-time to just about any federal agency, SEVIS' data set includes a student's name, country of origin, current address, academic major, student status, financial information, information on "misconduct," and any other information deemed "relevant" to an agency.

Think the Department of Education wanted to collect all this info? Guess again. It's the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Immigration Services, Federal Bureau of Investigation and other gun-toting agencies that would like to know whether you've gotten a new apartment, changed majors, or decided to drop a course. And who's digging up dirt on you and handing it over spit-shined to the feds? Your own university. In fact, legally bound to the terms of SEVIS, university administrators and staff have no control over what or how student information is used by federal agencies, nor do they have the right to tell you when or why your records are being accessed.

In SEVIS, federal agencies are given an unprecedented degree of access to private student information. It turns the Family Education Records Protection Act on its head and exacerbates international students' already vulnerable legal status. For these students, simple academic choices can carry grave consequences with respect to visa status and lawful presence within US borders. Such was the case in December 2002 when six students at Colorado State University and the University of Colorado were arrested on no other charge than for failure to hold a full-time course-load. By the logic of homeland security, not only are these students "illegal," they may very well be plotting the next big terror attack.

Advocates of SEVIS substantiate this criminalization of students with the fact that one of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers entered the US on a student visa. However, that's where the correlation between terrorism and higher education ends. Of over 30 million visas issued annually, student visas comprise only two percent. The US awards over 60 percent of student visas to nationals of Asian, Latin American, and European countries not associated by the Department of Homeland Security with support of terrorism. Moreover, the one September 11 hijacker who used a student visa as his entryway never attended a university. Similarly, the two hijackers who received student visas after already legally entering the US never attended two- or four-year universities. Is it any wonder that since its inception, SEVIS has not contributed to a single conviction of a university student on charges related to terrorism?

Meanwhile, by delaying the processing of student information and in many instances misreporting submitted data, SEVIS has actually weakened domestic security. Sadly, the system has succeeded only in jeopardizing the security of international students themselves. "Several schools have seen their student records mixed up with those of other institutions," Government Executive magazine reported in July 2003. "In other instances, pieces of data are jumbled."

Unfortunately, this test-run has very real costs. Technical problems have left more than one student in a legal lurch. Last year a Washington University student was suspended and jailed when her SEVIS file became inaccessible. The scenario was worse for Michigan State University doctoral candidate Walied Fayed. After filling out the wrong type of immigration form, he was summarily deported, leaving his wife and two-year-old daughter behind.

If that nightmare became your reality, you would likely expect a university official to intervene in your support. But that doesn't happen when you're dealing with SEVIS. Under federal compliance, your university has its hands tied. And adding insult to injury, to pay for the system, each university passes an estimated annual cost of $300,000 on to you the student.

Far from "foreign," international students are classmates, TAs, and members of student organizations. Like all students, they constitute a tremendous asset for higher education and society at large. They diversify campuses in terms of both culture and politics, contribute invaluable efforts to American graduate research, and pour over $12 billion dollars into the US economy annually. That's a lot to lose under the pretext of security.

While this situation calls for action, uniting progressive/ leftist campus groups and the targeted community remains a critical obstacle. International students are scared to act because of their precarious legal and student status. Yet, many international students are out there leading the way. In December 2003, at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, international graduate students organized with the Graduate Employees Organization (GEO) to resist SEVIS-associated fees leveled only on international students. In Spring 2004 during a 48- hour hunger strike, over 200 international students refused to cooperate with the $65 "pay-to-spy" fee. In solidarity, some students with citizenship also refused to pay a similar amount of their own student fees, and as many as ten academic departments wrote letters in support of the protest. But because failure to pay student fees leaves students in "bad standing" with the university - and therefore, non-compliance with SEVIS - the international students in this campaign could pay the greater cost. At least one now faces deportation.

Whether you are an international student or not, the stakes are high. SEVIS is both a preview and a component of a larger tracking system that will monitor all visitors to the US. While SEVIS has found little success in handling data from 600,000 students, the US VISIT system will attempt to process personal information, including fingerprints, from the over 30 million annual visitors to the US. It's anybody's guess how many innocent people will be detained, investigated, and deported based on glitches in the most draconian experiment in Big Brotherhood our nation has ever witnessed. This is not a battle for tomorrow. It's here today. It's called SEVIS.

---

A recent graduate of the University of Texas, Zafar S. Shah is an organizer for the RadDesi Summer, a Texas-based social justice activism workshop for South Asian youth.

 

&lt previous

Top

next >

From Vieques to the University of Puerto Rico

The Struggle Continues (la luche sigue!)

By Héctor Rosario, Ph.D.
Page 20

"When the University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez (UPR) announced it was building a new, $150,000 Air Force ROTC facility on campus, dozens of activists from the Frente Universitario por la Desmilitarización y la Educación began what would become a six-month campin at the construction site. Calling on the university to invest in students not soldiers, 30 students also took over the Army ROTC building for 24 hours in January, redecorating it with antiwar murals. Victory came in March, when the university agreed to devote the new building to academic use and to refuse ROTC additional space on campus."

- Mother Jones

It's before dawn and already almost thirty students are assembling to begin the takeover of an Army ROTC building at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez Campus. It's been planned for weeks, with both legal and professional advice. The morale is high and the determination to oust the military program from their campus is resolute. Harvard and Yale expelled their programs in the sixties, but they don't have the additional problem of being located in one of the few remaining colonies of the world. But there they are, following on the footsteps of their predecessors at the University of Puerto Rico in Río Piedras, who also attempted to oust the program, with the difference that now their successors have resolved to complete the task left unfinished in the sixties.

As soon as the ROTC officers open the heavy wooden doors of the beautiful structure the Army occupies but belongs to the UPR, the students swarm the building: four do a sit-in inside the administrative office, half-a-dozen paint anti-war and anti-ROTC murals on two of the outside walls, while the rest hold the doors to keep control of the main lobby. The officers are upset but feel powerless in front of a group of highly organized and disciplined nonviolent demonstrators. The ROTC personnel are puzzled as to what to do in such circumstances. They wish for a more favorable scenario where they can employ their violent skills. What a great disappointment.

Security officers come quickly to the scene but soon realize, as expected, that the symbolic takeover is a new tactic of the same group of students that has kept a civil disobedience encampment for the past four months at the foundations of an Air Force ROTC structure being rebuilt. Certainly, the construction there stopped and it will not be allowed to continue until there is a commitment by the university administration to return the building to the broader college community. But back to the Army ROTC protest, here they are again, quite a few students accompanied by professors.

The day goes on and tensions rise. The cadets are angry and aggressive but the students claim this as their building, a building that was meant for the education of a country not for the military training of its citizens that will eventually participate in the massacres of children and the destruction of infrastructures in Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other "pre-emptive" war. Not in our name. Not with our resources. Not anymore!

At night, we hold a vigil and have an open house for the university community. We watch documentaries about Iraq and the School of the Americas, while another group fraternizes with music. It's time to rejoice but not much. We recall that while we taste a small victory, Iraqis are resisting the occupation and many of them are dying. Yes, many soldiers fighting in US uniform, including over 3,000 from Puerto Rico, are also dying. Even though they made that dreadful choice and must be held accountable for it, we still have to bear the pains of the families disrupted by death, mutilation, and disease.

Morning comes and it's time to pack and go…for now. We declare a temporary victory: we took over the building, reclaimed it as cultural patrimony, and left peacefully. We will now face the consequences of our actions, whatever those may be. The administration seems clueless and feeble in front of our ingenuity and resolve. What they don't understand is that the successful demilitarization campaign of Puerto Rico did not end with Vieques. There's still work to be done.

Civil disobedience and direct action protests will continue until the demilitarization of the University of Puerto Rico is attained. The encampment that students have maintained at the former Air Force ROTC structure stands proudly today as a symbol of dignity and perseverance. At the site, a small concrete lot, the students meet, eat, sleep, and coordinate their next move. All throughout, the students have braved everything from hostile administration officials and security officers to inclement weather and lack of basic needs like water and electricity. But again, there's still work to be done.

We urge anti-war activists across the United States to help us disseminate our message. We must fight the insanity of war from every angle. This requires ending all ROTC programs and their recruitment activities on our college campuses.

Frente Universitario por la Desmilitarización y la Educación (FUDE)
fude_rum at hotmail dot com (787) 969-0494

---

Héctor Rosario, 30, is known for his activism in favor of the demilitarization of the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. He has a PhD in mathematics education from Columbia University. Contact Rosario at hrosario@math.uprm.edu

 

&lt previous

Top

next &gt

Post 9-11 Repression

The Effects on Students

Adapted from studentsforfreedom.org
Page 21

Under the USA PATRIOT Act and Other Post-911 Policies the Government Can Now:

1. Label Us "Terrorists" if We Belong to a Student Activist Group

The USA PATRIOT Act broadly expands the official definition of terrorism, so that student groups that engage in certain types of civil disobedience could very well find themselves labeled as terrorists (Sections 411, 802). The Sheriff of Hennepin County, Minnesota declared that the student groups "Anti Racist Action", "Students Against War", and "Arise!" were potential terrorist threats.

2. Seize Our Student Records

The USA PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement access to student educational records without probable cause of crime. (Section 507) According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), about 200 colleges and universities have turned over student information to the FBI, INS, and other law enforcement officials.

3. Collect information about what books we take out of our school library, what we study, and what we purchase from our school bookstore.

The USA PATRIOT Act gives law enforcement broad access to any types of records - sales, library, financial, medical, etc. - without probable cause of a crime. It also prohibits the holders of this information, like University librarians, from disclosing that they have produced such records, under the threat of jail time (Section 215, 505). A University of Illinois survey of U.S. public libraries found that at least 545 libraries had been asked for records by law enforcement in the year after September 11, 2001.

4. Search Our College Dorm Rooms, Apartments or Homes and Not Even Tell Us.

The USA PATRIOT Act allows the law enforcement to conduct secret "sneak and peek" searches of a dorm, apartment or home. Investigators can enter a place of residence, take pictures and seize items without informing the occupant that a warrant was issued for an indefinite period of time. (Section 213) The government refuses to disclose how many times it has used this power.

5. Monitor Student E-mail and Internet Activity

The USA PATRIOT Act permits the government to monitor Internet traffic and e-mail communications on any Internet service provider without probable cause of crime by obtaining detailed "routing" information like a web address. While this provision is supposedly aimed at lawbreakers, it sweeps broadly because e-mails and Internet traffic information of innocent students cannot be separated from the activity of targeted individuals (Section 216). The government refuses to disclose how many times it has used this power.

6. Spy on Student Political Meetings or Religious Ceremonies

The USA PATRIOT Act permits a vast array of information gathering on student political meetings and religious ceremonies to be collected-often by c