JROTC Programs banned in SF

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Sexual orientation isn't covered. Private companies have added that, but it's not a government regulation.

Lets face it, discrimination on the basis of who a person is having sex with is anti-constitutional. The whole point of hte consitution is that all men are equal before the law. The framers didn't explicitly deny slavery, so peopel did it. That hardly made it right.

JROTC doesn't ban gays

So a person can go up to the jrotc office or what have you, and say that they're a homosexual and would like to join the jrotc, and they'll be allowed in?

Well, whoever said the military descriminates against fat people is full of it, you can obtain a waiver if you pass the Initial Strength Test.

there are other waivers that can be obtained.

The JROTC doesn't care whether or not you are black, white, gay, straight, purple, or whatever. My unit commander was flaaaaming, and we loved him.

Originally posted by Nygdan
So a person can go up to the jrotc office or what have you, and say that they're a homosexual and would like to join the jrotc, and they'll be allowed in?

Yes. And I'm sure it's been done before, especially in the SF area. I remember a few students back in HS that were openly gay and had no problem with the JROTC instructors or the program itself.

I never had a problem in JROTC for being gay. Nor did the other guys that were gay who I knew about. We even had the opportunity to have simple things discussed in Sex/Ed (which was part of the JROTC curriculum at my HS), where some of the more "homosexual" aspects of sex were included. They had no problem at all as far as I ever saw.

I see the "point" they were trying to make, and in some forms can see how the school board was right, but on the common level, it's just another group.

So, lets just be clear, because I am completely surprised. Officially, gays are permited into the JROTC. Its not a matter of people that are gay have been in it and it was known by their freinds that they were gay, or even their instructor, and he just didn't report it. Its officially permissible to have homosexuals in the JROTC?

I'm looking for it on the afoats.af.mil site and found some statements regarding homosexuals, but this was not for the secondary school level, and didn't involve JROTC. I think what SF was trying to do with this was say, "military doesn't want open homosexuals, JROTC is funded by and part of the military, therefore it goes against our anti-discrimination practices."

And that is all I think they were doing.

*Edit - In response to Nygdan: In my personal experience, coming out led to me being on the front page of the Living Section in the New Orleans paper (long story). It didn't affect my status in AFJROTC, and in fact, I can still contact my head instructor and recieve an excellent recommendation letter if I need one. So in my experience, I didn't have any problems due to any "policies."

[edit on 12/13/06 by niteboy82]

Originally posted by Nygdan
Its officially permissible to have homosexuals in the JROTC?

I have never seen anything saying gays couldn't be in JROTC.....when I was in I always understood it as everyone was allowed in. So I'm gonna say yes, gays can officially be in.

Well then, damn those SF schools.

Heh, that's the first time I've actually seen an argument on here that ended up in someone changing their mind.


However, I don't see where it's unconstitutional to discriminate . . . sure, "equal protection under the law", but like it was pointed out, the military is a very selective organization that is allowed to discriminate . . . if they let in gays, will they also let in 75 year old volunteers, four feet tall midgets, and blind men?

Surely if they don't, this is age discrimination, "height" discrimination, and a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Not that it matters. The military really can't be forced to do anything. Who's going to enforce something against the military? Laws can only be upheld if someone can enforce it, and no one is going to enforce something against the military.

The JROTC doesn't ban gays- period. So.....yes a person could join and say that they were gay, and not be kicked out.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by SportyMB
The JROTC does not have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in fact, there are many students that are openly gay. Also, the instructors are retired, not active duty.

That doesn't extricate them from the Military.

JROTC

The Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) is a program put forth by the United States Armed Forces in high schools across the nation that train high school students in Leadership and Military Sciences.

JROTC Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps

JROTC units receive certain financial support from the Armed Forces, including reimbursement for instructor salaries.
...
The instructor continues to receive their normal retired pay, but in addition, the school normally agrees to pay the difference between the instructor's retired pay and what the instructor would receive if they were on active duty. The service concerned then reimburses the school for approximately one-half of the amount paid by the school to the instructor.
...
Successful completion of the program (usually 2-4 years of classes) can lead to advanced rank upon enlistment in the Armed Forces.

From the OP's source:

Mayor Gavin Newsom called severing ties with the JROTC "a bad idea" that penalized students without having any practical effect on the Pentagon's policy on gays in the military.

Somebody has to make some noise if the message is going to get to the Pentagon. The government can still have this "mini-Military" program. Just not in the schools who don't want it there.

Sometimes we choose not to support something because of the bigger picture. For example, I don't buy from Amazon.com because they send jobs overseas. They're never going to know any difference, but I have to do my part.

Although I agree there are worse things for kids to be doing, I also think there are better.


[edit on 16-11-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

if you dont like it then dont join it but dont take away the option from other people.

"Lets face it, discrimination on the basis of who a person is having sex with is anti-constitutional. The whole point of hte consitution is that all men are equal before the law. The framers didn't explicitly deny slavery, so peopel did it. That hardly made it right. "

You're changing your argument. Originally it was based on what the law said, and now it's on what the law should say. The military could go back to its old system of saying you can't be here period if you're gay, and they'd be within their legal rights. Whether it'd be politically possible is another matter. When it all comes down to it, it's about what is best for the military, not what's best for the individual. You have to give up a lot of freedoms when you join the military, that a civilian wouldn't. Everything is about order, discipline, teamwork, morale, unit cohesion. Individuality isn't a priority, uniformity is however. That doesn't mean everyone thinks alike, but you're expected to behave to certain standards, that don't adversely effect the unit. With the military being small, you can't afford to have a lot of weak links, and disruptive personalities. Civilians aren't forced into situations where they have no privacy, or are in life and death situations where you have to have absolute trust and confidence in your buddies. This is why there is a different standard.
If you're out of shape, you hurt the team, if you're screwing your buddies' wife, you hurt the team, if your personal affairs aren't in order so that your mind isn't focused, you hurt the team, if you're selfish, you hurt the team, if you cause your coworkers to not trust you, you hurt the team, and so on....

Does anybody see a pattern here? It's about the team, not about you.

In a military dictatorship it would be true that no one could force the military to do something, but in the USA, civilians are in charge of the military. There's a lot of stuff that the military wouldn't do, if it was up to them, but have been forced to do by their civilian leadership.

Oh, really?

In that case, Mr. Civilian, why don't you go and reverse the military policy about gays?

It's much like a recent decision in which some activist judge ruled that portions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, and she ordered the federal government to cease from acting upon those provisions.

In effect, the federal government had a nice chuckle about it, and responded with "Okay lady, you made this ruling, now you enforce it."

Same kind of situation with the military. What would probably occur, is they'd allow gays into the military, but they would require some kind of designation as to their orientation. Perhaps on dog tags. Or, perhaps they'd be rainbow colored. In this way, individual soldiers would discriminate against them, rather than the military.

I grew up in San Francisco. The educational system was failing back then. It hasn't impoved since then.

So the board of education decides to ban the jrotc. I think that it's time some of the parents with kids in the program sue the board for discrimination. That's an ugly word in SF. But that's what the board is doing. It's discrimination against the 1600 or so students that are currently in the program.

Who do you think made the military change that policy? Bill Clinton. It'd still be the old system if he hadn't forced them to. Generals that don't obey their civilian leaders tend to get fired. I've got another few years yet before I'm a civilian by the way. I doubt any policy makers will ask me about my opinions then, any more than they do now.

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Heh, that's the first time I've actually seen an argument on here that ended up in someone changing their mind.

Look harder, because it happens a bit here.

However, I don't see where it's unconstitutional to discriminate . . . sure, "equal protection under the law", but like it was pointed out, the military is a very selective organization that is allowed to discriminate . . . if they let in gays, will they also let in 75 year old volunteers, four feet tall midgets, and blind men?

Dwarfism is a physical handicap, and blindness is a physical handicap. I think a 75 year old should not be allowed. But exactly how is a gay person incapable of picking up a gun, and defending his/her country? You don't see where it's unconstitutional to discriminate? :shk: I have to tell ya, most of the country, and the idea of "all men are created equal", is against you on this one. Most people don't care one way or the other about gay people as long as it doesn't bother their bubbles that they live in.

Surely if they don't, this is age discrimination, "height" discrimination, and a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

There is a certain age, when your body physically cannot work to the degree that a younger body can. That's just the way it is. Height discrimination?? Now who's sounding silly here? You're comparing apples and oranges. Being gay is not equivocal to being 3'2" and blind.

Not that it matters. The military really can't be forced to do anything. Who's going to enforce something against the military? Laws can only be upheld if someone can enforce it, and no one is going to enforce something against the military.

We cut their cash flow, they can pick up some sticks and try to fend the people off, but you have to understand that in this country it is supposed to be rule by the people and you should never be fearful of your military and think "well, they could kill me, so I better stay in line." You make it sound like we live in a police state or something.

Originally posted by Southern_cross3What would probably occur, is they'd allow gays into the military, but they would require some kind of designation as to their orientation. Perhaps on dog tags. Or, perhaps they'd be rainbow colored. In this way, individual soldiers would discriminate against them, rather than the military.

What world are you living in? If they allow gay people into the military?



They are already there! The policy is "don't ask, don't tell", not "don't join." They've been there. They will always be there as long as there are gay people and militaries. Dog tags with rainbows? So they could be discriminated against? So in a nutshell you say "let's advocate discrimination?" Boy, that's really taking things to the extreme. :shk:

[edit on 12/13/06 by niteboy82]
*edit - spacing

[edit on 12/13/06 by niteboy82]

Originally posted by southern_cross3
but they would require some kind of designation as to their orientation. Perhaps on dog tags. Or, perhaps they'd be rainbow colored. In this way, individual soldiers would discriminate against them, rather than the military.

Why? What would be the point? Why would individual soldiers discriminate against gays?

One of my good friends is a Marine serving in a very high profile position....he's gay. Should he be discriminated against? Why?

[edit on 13/12/2006 by SportyMB]

I'm not saying anyone should discriminate, but they should be able to if they want to. Including the military. And yes, individual soldiers would discriminate. I can only imagine all the "don't drop the soap" jokes.