Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)

: Luis Villanueva Rodríguez; Articles Archive; 01 January 2015; Hits: 252

Kidnapped Student Teachers in México: An Inside Perspective

From Draft NOtices, January-March 2015

— Luis Villanueva Rodríguez

For many, the September killings of three and disappearance of 43 students from Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers College in the Méxican state of Guerrero has been profoundly painful and tragic. My feelings of outrage and despair are also deep because I was educated in one of Ayotzinapa’s sister schools. What many do not realize is that this crime was perpetuated by the Méxican government against students who had important social justice concerns and who were soon to become activist teachers. These rural teachers’ colleges are known for their progressive beliefs. I have always understood my role as a social justice teacher and community advocate because of my education at these schools. There are important political and historic aspects to the recent events that most people outside of México are not aware of.

The school these students came from, Ayotzinapa, is part of a vital and historic education system that was born out of the Méxican Revolution of 1910-1917. Because of the essential role that campesinos played in the success of the Revolution, the new government developed a plan to address the lack of education in the poorest rural communities all over México. Government-sponsored boarding schools were founded for grades one through normal schools (teacher colleges). Originally separated into boys and girls campuses, hundreds of thousands of México’s teachers have graduated from these schools. To this day, it is at these schools that the poorest citizens of México become well educated, learn of the inequalities and injustices in their society, and develop into engaged, justice-seeking teachers. These inspired teachers create awareness in their own impoverished students, which then becomes a threat to the government that seeks to keep its population passive and unquestioning.

: Kate Connell; Articles Archive; 01 January 2015; Hits: 248

Changing Recruitment Policies in Schools: One Phone Call and Email at a Time

From Draft NOtices, January-March 2015

— Kate Connell

In the spring of 2014, I went to observe a career day at Santa Barbara High School, where my son is enrolled. There were a variety of organizations with representatives and literature tables. The Marines and the Navy recruiters were also there. They were soliciting student contact information. The Marine’s “survey” form included questions such as, “Did you know that the Marine Corps has a $150,000 scholarship?” and “Did you know that the qualifications for the Marine Corps are higher than the standards of UC Santa Barbara?” I told them that under the school’s existing recruiting protocol they were not allowed to get student information directly from students, and that they had to go through the Santa Barbara Unified School District office.

I turned around and saw the school's career counselor and approached him, reminding him about the school's recruiter protocol. He didn’t recall that part of the protocol and said he would talk to the military recruiters about it. I asked, “What about the information they have already gathered from students?” I went back to the Marine recruiters and repeated that they were not allowed to solicit student information. I picked up the surveys they had collected and said that I was going to tear them up and throw them out. They consented, so I ripped them up.

I went to the Navy recruiters’ table and told them the same thing. They had a binder with the protocol in it and looked it up. The Navy recruiter said, "That's correct, here it is, in 'G.'" (G. Recruiters visiting schools shall not at any time solicit contact information directly from students or require it as a condition to participate in an activity or receive an award or gift.) I said, "I am going to take this sign-up sheet and tear it up," holding it up for them to see, and they also said ok.

: Karen Guzman; Articles Archive; 01 January 2015; Hits: 255

U.S. Militarism and the International Sex Industry

From Draft NOtices, January-March 2015

— Karen Guzman

It is clear why the United States of America has been given global recognition as the country with the most powerful military in the world. The U.S. government spends more on its military than the annual budgets of nearly all countries in the world. Aside from having the most weapons, aircraft, and satellites, the United States’ military presence worldwide has expanded so much that it has earned it the status of a modern-day imperialist nation — an imperialist nation that has been able to disguise its methods of expansion through military bases, foreign aid, and even humanitarian work around the world.

History shows us that the U.S. expanded from having 14 military bases abroad in 1938 to 30,000 large and small installations in approximately 100 countries by 1945. Today many of these installations have been closed, but the once-occupied communities have been left to struggle with the aftermath of U.S. military presence. While there is more awareness now of the ramifications of U.S. militarism and its destruction of the environment and livelihoods of local people, one of the less-known issues is how U.S. military expansion contributed to the growth of the international sex industry.

Perhaps one of the most discernible examples of this is the U.S. Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines. In the 1980s there were more than 4,000 American officers and their dependents stationed there, following the Vietnam War-era heyday when some four million U.S. sailors passed through Subic every year. The base was described by the Wall Street Journal as the “central hub for U.S. military operations in the Asia-Pacific.”