Opinion
Protesting policies, defending soldiers
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Recently, I, along with three other students and workers, sat in at the army recruitment center and refused to leave until it was shut down.
Since then, I have faced hostility from a number of people who don’t seem to understand why I did what I did. I would like to take this opportunity to explain my actions.
First of all, we were not protesting the soldiers; we were protesting the predatory recruitment of mostly lower-class and minority students.
While there are some students who enlist because they want to fight this war, a huge number join out of economic necessity or because they are coerced into it by recruiters. Recruiters use a lot of questionable tactics to recruit students.
For one, they promise them money for school under the GI Bill. The Montgomery GI Bill, however, passed in 1985, is very different from the previous GI Bill. Soldiers are not guaranteed a free or even cheap education under this bill. A soldier has to meet a number of requirements, including making a non-refundable contribution of $1,200, in order to qualify for the GI Bill. They won’t even find out if they qualify for the bill until they have completed the military service, so a soldier who joins in hope of getting money for education may end up completing a lengthy service and then not even qualify.
In addition, the $50,000 often touted is the most ever given out and it is only given to a limited number of soldiers who take the jobs that are hardest to fill. There are many other misleading and predatory practices as well, and I encourage people to research and find out about them.
I would also like to point out that not only are we not protesting the soldiers; we are acting in solidarity with some of them. When members of the 343rd Quartermasters Company refused to carry out a risky mission, they were held against their will and many of them called home to ask other people to stand in solidarity with them, including Amber McClenney, who called her mother and told her to contact people and “raise pure hell.”
Our act was in solidarity with these soldiers, as well as being a statement against the current recruitment practices and the fact that people have to go to war and die for an education.
We realize that education is unaffordable for many people, which is why all of us who sat in are also active in the campaign to lower tuition. People should not have to die for an education. What we did was not just a trivial action done for fun; it was a specifically targeted action meant to be a spark to encourage further actions on this campus and around the country. If many people carry out similar actions, we will indeed have an impact.
Liz Klainot
eaklainot@wiscmail.wisc.edu
12 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
OK, here's the deal Jane Fonda: Vietnam is over...get a grip...find a job...get a life.
"Recruiters use a lot of questionable tactics to recruit students."
Yeah, just like they did back during the Vietnam war. The more things change...you know the rest.
I'm pretty sure not much has changed in the last 3 years since I graduated but financial aid was pretty easy to get when I was in school and in fact, financial aid and a part time job put me through school. No reason that others can't do the same thing. As for soldiers being "coerced into it by recruiters", I don't think I've ever seen a recruiter walk out of their office, stop the first poor person they saw and force them to join the military. In fact, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people who join the military are well aware of what they are getting themselves into. I'm pretty sure they know the difference between the Army and the Peace Corps and know that they may have to put their life on the line. If they are not aware of this - we've got some larger issues to deal with than recruiters using "a lot of questionable tactics".
Ok, so now people in our military are using 3rd grade tactics when they don't want to do their jobs, which are inherently risky?
"But mommy! I don't want to go!"
It sounds like me with Hebrew school when I was 9.
I don't think you can compare a 9 yr.old not wanting to go to hebrew school with a soldier not wanting to drive an unarmored truck through enemy occupied territory.
And to the anonymous poster before that,
How many army recruiting officers have you seen? It must be in the hundreds if you can be so sure none of them have used coercive tactics.
I didn't say I was sure I had never seen a recruiter use coercive tactics - I'm sure they have. But then again, when my boyfriend and his buddies joined the Army they did it on their own accord and nobody forced them. I'm not necessarily defending recruiters but what I'm saying is that the majority of people who join the military do it because they want to and are aware of the risks. It's a job and like it or not, in the military you do what you are told to do and if you don't, you deal with the consequences. If I didn't feel like doing my job and told my boss "no", I'd certainly be fired. You don't always get what you want and sometimes have to do things you don't want to - that's the way life is - deal with it.
I feel for these soldiers, but being a soldier and following orders is their job. There is a chain of command for a reason. When soldiers act on their own, then you have messes like the ones you had in Abu Gharib.
The protestors' goals were not at all transparent. To complicate matters, the protestors were clearly not all protesting for the same reasons. As far as I could see, at least some segment of the protestors supported each of the following as a justification for protesting:
1) Upset with insufficient funding for higher education
2) Opposes the war in Iraq
3) Opposes the existence of U.S. armed forces
4) Disagrees with recruiting tactics
5) Frustrated with disproportionate demographic representation in the armed forces
Unfortunately for the protestors, a military recruitment office only makes sense for a protest couched in justification #4.
While Ms. Klainot may have been at the recruiting office primarily for justification #4, she clearly does not speak for everyone who was there. The contemporaneous quotes suggest that the protest was couched more in #2 and #3 than anything else.
If you were there for #1, you have a much better forum than you chose. I'd suggest protesting just up the street at Jim Doyle's office, since he is primarily responsible for the current level of funding for higher education.
If you were there for #5, I am completely befuddled by your message. What exactly do you propose to fix this situation? I've heard two solutions - 1) draft, 2) higher military pay - neither of which came from the protesting types.
Confusion abounds in trying to understand what the heck you guys were attempting to say. Therefore, many have gravitated to the simplest solution, which is that you were really there to protest the war by protesting the soldiers fighting that war.
If you don't want people jumping to that conclusion, I would suggest being much more clear about communicating your goals upfront.
#3 are you serious?
Liz Klainot: sorry you were born to late and missed all the protests about the Vietnam War. The GI Bill was the better for my dad and his WWII generation but not as good as for my "Vietnam Era" generation.
My kids have already borrowed the Beatles albums. Remember, all we need is love, love. Make love not war and draft beer not students. Now, please grow up like Amber McClenney was forced to do and join the rest of us in adulthood as part of the 21st Century.
"NO MISSION TOO DIFFICULT, NO SACRIFICE TOO GREAT" -- "DUTY FIRST"
I think you have seen too many Moore movies...
Funny how Amber is the one who needs to grow up and do her job, but not one of you have questioned the generals or commanders. Perhaps they need to step up as well. We have had a number of miscues in Iraq, still no one has had to "grow up" and take responsibility. Well, I say support the private firm troops. They never get any credit, but, at least they get paid.