From Draft NOtices, January—March 2010
–Jorge Mariscal with Mónica Jaúregui
For the thousands of young people brought to the United States as children of undocumented immigrant families, a pathway to legalization deferred one more day is a pathway deferred far too long. As we have reported in previous issues of Draft NOtices for almost a decade multiple attempts to pass federal legislation that would legalize these youth have failed. The so-called DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, still lingers in the halls of Congress. But Democratic Party concerns about the 2010 elections, especially in the wake of the health care reform fiasco, may delay further progress on any immigration reform. In the meantime, supporters of the DREAM Act continue to hope. For many, their desperation increases day by day.
The DREAM Act’s most recent incarnation is found in two bills sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois and Representative Howard Berman of California. Both Senate bill 729 and H.R. 1751 propose to “permit States to determine State residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the United States as children, and for other purposes.” Last March, the Senate bill had only 32 co-sponsors and is now stalled at the Committee on the Judiciary; last May, the House bill with 106 co-sponsors was referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education.
Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD)
From Draft NOtices, January—March 2010
- David Morales
An education crisis is unfolding in California, particularly in San Diego. Perhaps it is due to the capitalistic system of the United States; perhaps it is because of the militarized country and its greed for world domination; or maybe it is because of the wrong priorities in a hierarchical society. Perhaps it is a result of all these factors, but one thing is certain: it is not working and it is affecting youth of color and those in low-income and middle-class communities. Young people are being tracked into the military instead of colleges and universities now more than ever as education becomes increasingly exclusive.
In September last year I attended a school district board meeting representing the Education Not Arms Coalition (ENAC). In the San Diego Unified School District, there were many students who received their enrollment forms with question number 28 pre-checked. This question asked if it is OK to release the student’s information to the military. The answer was already marked “yes” when the forms were distributed. ENAC’s demands were to delay the release of any information to the military and to have the situation corrected by providing an opportunity for all households in the district to opt out.
In that same meeting I became aware of the elimination of San Diego State University’s Local Access Guarantee Policy, which gives all students in the San Diego region who have completed certain requirements priority over students outside the region, including out-of-state and international students. This includes completion of A-G courses (e.g., four years of English, three years of math), the SAT examinations, and a minimum GPA. The effect of this policy has been to provide local low-income students an opportunity to succeed. Many of them are place-bound because they cannot afford to go to far-away colleges due to significantly higher out-of-state tuition costs; instead, under the Local Access Policy they have been able to attend school while living at home. Even though this policy has been extremely beneficial to our communities, it has been eliminated by an elitist administration that seeks to bring in more money from students paying higher out-of-state tuition fees. Their justification is that it would enable SDSU to become a more prestigious and competitive school.
From Draft NOtices, January—March 2010
- Pat Elder
The Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is a public service provided to high schools free of charge. The program helps teens find their strengths and helps them set goals for their future.
Officials try to keep recruiters away from the test as much as possible.
— DoD statements on the ASVAB
Every school year hundreds of thousands of high school students across the country are encouraged — and often required — to take a four-hour military exam during school hours. The test, with a name few can remember (the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, or ASVAB), is an integral part of the Pentagon's overall recruitment program. Heightened public concerns about the administration of the school testing program are contributing to its decline, particularly in the last few years.
Many school officials, persuaded by claims that the ASVAB helps students choose appropriate careers, encourage students to take the test. Since 1968 the Pentagon has used the ASVAB to gather a treasure trove of data on 16- and 17-year-olds. ASVAB data goes beyond the name, address, and phone numbers of high school students that military recruiters may receive as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001. Students who take the ASVAB divulge their Social Security number, gender, race, ethnicity, birth date, statement of future plans, and, significantly, their aptitude in ten critical subtest areas.
The ASVAB is the military's entrance exam given to all fresh recruits to determine their aptitude for various military occupations. The test was also administered to 621,000 students in 11,900 high schools across the country during the 2006-2007 school year, the last year for which such data is available. Nationally, the number of students taking the ASVAB dropped 19 percent from 2002 to 2007, accelerating a steady decline that began in 1990.
Ninth CIRCUIT COURT RULING: CONFRONTING MILITARISM BY USING EQUAL ACCESS TO HIGH SCHOOLS
When the military comes to your local high school, you have a legal right to give students an opposing view. This has been the position taken by federal district courts in Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois and two federal appellate courts. The most broadly-worded decision came from a case that COMD took to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1980s. Here is the background:
