6/6/08: The ethics of recruiting the poor to be soldiers

Last week, I left you hanging. I brought up the No Child Left Behind education laws, mentioned the clause requiring federally funded schools to hand over student information to military recruiters and told you we have a responsibility to be concerned by the clause.

Now I’ll explain why.

In general terms, NCLB, passed in President Bush’s first term, determines which school districts are eligible for federal funding, including Title 1 funds, which are earmarked for schools with a high percentage of students of color and students from low-income families.

Specifically, the recruitment clause, section 9528 of the act, says "each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide [to military recruiters] access to secondary school students’ names, addresses and telephone listings."

In other words, any school receiving funding through NCLB has to give local recruiters this information, presumably to make recruitment easier.

It seems easy enough to say "No, thanks" when a recruiter comes calling, as I did, though it took a few rejections before they struck my name from the list. But consider that only schools getting federal funding — which means urban schools serving lower-income residents — are required to report student information.

This means high school students in New Britain, Bristol and Hartford can expect phone calls from local military recruiters, probably before they graduate, but students from Avon, Simsbury and other high schools not requiring federal funding will not have their information passed on and may avoid recruitment calls. All this adds up to recruiters being encouraged to focus on signing teens from lower-income neighborhoods.

It may be true that kids from a low-income background have fewer career choices after graduation and view the military as a decent option. Some students may prefer a more active vocation to college. Some may want the assumed job security of a military career. It’s possible that in a free-market economy, a preponderance of lower-income people would naturally end up in the military.

This still wouldn’t answer the ethical question raised by encouraging low-income people to join the military. Even if "the market" had been the determining factor in how recruiters select their candidates, targeting low-income citizens is suspect. We’d likely prefer not to think of ourselves as hiring mercenaries, though that’s what low-income student recruitment boils down to.

But whatever your opinion of recruitment in the context of free-market economics, No Child Left Behind is not the result of a free market. It’s federal legislation.

Take what you will from the conflict of interest inherent in a federal government offering public education money contingent on students’ availability for military recruitment.

The bottom line is that such a conflict does exist, and it’s our job as citizens to think through what it means and work out how to respond.

We need to do it now.

The likelihood a simple "No, thanks" will suffice becomes questionable when we consider contractual "stop loss" policy — which allows the military to extend soldiers’ enlistment indefinitely in time of war — recruitment quotas and the added pressure to enlist new recruits brought on by the war in Iraq.

For now, there is an opt-out clause attached to NCLB’s Section 9528. School administrators are required to tell parents of the recruitment clause and of their option to have their child’s information kept private. A written request asking that information not be given out without parental consent must be honored.

For opt-out information, contact your local school district.