|
Not too long ago, I received a warm email from the Marine Corps Officer Selection Officer for the University of Maryland, Captain Dennis Doyle. Apparently, I may be eligible to participate in the Platoon Leaders Course this summer, where I can earn money and learn valuable life lessons in what Inc. Magazine purportedly called “the best management training program in America.” I could even, if my interests led me down such a path, accept a summer commission to fly jet planes in Pensacola, and if I completed Officer Candidates School would be on my way to becoming a Marine Lieutenant. Why, I ask, was I not informed of such a wonderful opportunity earlier? As one of countless students attending the University of Maryland in part due to the receipt of generous servings of federal financial aid, the recent hubbub over the government’s persistent efforts to require universities and colleges to allow on-campus military recruitment places me, and many others, in ringside seats to observe the spectacle that is bureaucratic boxing. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in March that all institutions of higher learning that accept federal funds must accept federal recruiters, and this largely unpopular decision is yet another example of flawed reasoning prevailing over common sense, and of the government’s desires conflicting with what many feel to be constitutional rights, an alarming trend whose pervasiveness seems to spread like wildfires in Arizona. The decade-old Solomon Amendment, which warned universities that federal funding would be withdrawn if they refused to allow military recruiters access to their campuses, was first challenged by a group of law schools who were protesting the military’s controversial “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy. Although the government has won the court case, it is important to look at the bigger picture, for years the issue of plummeting recruitment has been at the forefront of the military agenda, and it seems this new ruling presents many institutions with a cruel “rock and a hard place” decision to make. The wording of the ruling is such that on the surface, it seems as if the universities have a choice, but in reality, very few colleges can afford relinquishing federal funds, so for all intents and purposes, colleges and universities are being forced to do something many of them feel violates their First Amendment Rights. Even schools such as Harvard-whose multi-billion dollar endowment exceeds the gross domestic product (GDP) of some underdeveloped nations-rely heavily on the Stafford Loans and Pell Grants in their financial aid packages; so life without federal funds at an institution of higher learning translates into life without federal financial aid for students. It seems that the government’s agenda for increased recruiting to support already unpopular operations abroad, such as the conflict in Iraq, supersedes its agenda for increased educational opportunities for students on the domestic front. For the government to push this issue and force schools to make a choice none of them can afford to make, the government has shown what many already suspect: other pressing issues that the government is facing clearly present more of a squeeze to its interests than the problems that represent more of what the average American is concerned with. The government had no inhibitions offering this option to colleges and universities, an option it knew would jeopardize many students who attend these institutions, and this shows that the gulf between the agenda of the government and the needs of the people grows larger with each passing day. Putting aside all other considerations, the entire situation still begs the question, “What is the purpose of on-campus military recruiting?” Many would agree that recruiting on high school campuses makes a great deal of sense. High school students who have not decided what they will do upon graduation might appreciate information about the possible alternatives for postgraduate activities, such as the military. But to recruit college students who presumably are in college to pursue non-military opportunities (otherwise they would have just attended a military academy instead) seemingly serves to purpose. All branches of the military have consistently fallen short of recruiting goals even with on-campus recruiting, so what is the benefit of the program? Does the military wish to lure students who are withdrawing from school to its ranks? If so, is it prudent for the recruiting base for the forces that protect this nation at home and abroad to be drawn from students who resided at the margins of the academic horizon? Or perhaps, in light of Congress’s 12.7 billion dollar cut from student loan programs, (the deciding vote for which was cast by Vice President Dick Cheney) the government wishes to decrease the number of students financially able to attend college and then cycle them straight into the military through on-campus recruiting programs? This issue is not one of politics or party affiliation. The government as a whole, regardless of any real or perceived delineation, must consider how its actions will look to its people. Because when funds are cut and choices with financial aid implications are essentially forced upon schools, it looks as if the fact of rising educational costs is something the government doesn’t wish to be bothered with and is inadvertently working to facilitate. So in the fall, if your refund check is considerably smaller than before, remember the multi-billion dollar cut that will take effect this July and try your best to maintain a positive outlook. In the meantime, I’ll be in Pensacola, flying jets.
|
