My first question to the panel (or anyone else who would like to respond) is, what are the main challenges you face when trying to help people understand the role of the military in our society?

I think a central challenge right now is the difficulties opening up the conversation about the military with educators. More specifically, trying to get educators to perceive learning about the impact of the military as important curricular work and helping them and young people see how it is part of a much larger picture of shaping the freedom and rights of individuals, communities, and the world.

For example, the fact that understanding the impact of the U.S. military on the U.S nation state itself is not part of "standard curriculum" seems to make it challenging for them to see investigations into these topics as relevant and gets them involved in "politicized" topics that they don't really see as part of thier jobs as teaachers. It just does not seem accomplishable within the current constraints on the intellectual work of teachers.

As activist-educators we must work to engage these eductrs in conversations that will support them in understanding the complex picture that the military is a part of within education, social mobility and civic engagement for youth. Further we need to continue to get educators to understand that teaching is always a political act, and it is crucial that they engage young people in "critical" work where students are conscoius of various perspectives and the need for a more socially just world.

A second challenge is related more specifically to youth and has to do with the recruitment tactics used by the military and the lack of options for youth post-graduation. Camouflaged is a product of curricular work that NYCoRE has been doing since we began a collaboration with Paper Tiger Television on their film Military Myths. Camouflaged, and the film, seek to shed some light on how recruiters seek to persuade and, quite frankly, deceive youth into joining the military. The Military Recruitment Handbook still suggests that the role of the recruiter is "total school control." NYCoRE thinks that this rhetoric is not something that is discussed when recruiters approach students. Nor do we think recruiters discuss the thinking behind having alumni return to their schools in uniform, or the military commercials presented through various media. This is a situation where the military's marketing department dominates any alternative message that is out there. This perpetuates the image of the military as an access point for adventure, for being warriors, patriots, and opportunities for higher education.

Further, the reality is that many youth are presented with a very limited number of viable options to them following high school, augmenting the place of the military. This is particularly true for youth of color, immigrant status, and/or working class status in urban and rural settings. Alternatives to the military for many of these students seem to be limited, or do not provide paths for long-term social mobility. So even if we are able to help youth develop a more balanced perspective on the military, educators are pressed to come up with some realistic options for youth.

In my work with students and adults, these issues invariably emerge.

Confusing nationalism with patriotism: People mistakenly believe they must show their love of country (patriotism) by supporting the President in his role as Commander and Chief. They believe US citizens should unite against any foreign entity be it a nation, a religion, or a movement (nationalism).

Lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of the role of the US military around the world: Many Americans do not understand the destructive role played by US military interventions around the world. It takes some case by case examination and discussion. It’s hard to accept the idea that US military ventures abroad may be actually making things less safe for Americans.

Respect for the Troops: Many people feel defensive about the US military because of the ingrained respect people have been taught to have for people who “serve the nation.” This is why people who oppose the Iraq war feel obligated to say, “but I support the troops.” This is more powerful at the high school where I teach because many students have family members or acquaintances who are serving or have served.

Related moral issue: Viewing military service as essentially a job choice.
Does “following orders” absolve soldiers from moral or legal responsibility for their actions such as participating in the illegal invasion of Iraq?

As an educator in a public high school, there are challenges when trying to engage people in discussion about the role of the military in our society some endemic to our wider culture, others unique to the school context.

The other panelists have already mentioned the patriotism and honor associated with serving in the military that has been deeply ingrained since the foundations of the country. The glorification of the warrior and an unquestioning portrayal of US military involvement in news and entertainment media combined with the military's direct use of mass media in its recruitment efforts reinforce an uncritical view of the military today.

Most people have not been willing to accept the fact that our military acts as anything other than the protector of democracy abroad in spite of current and historical evidence of the contrary. This provides a context where any questioning of the role of the military or military service can cause a backlash in any context.

As Bill mentioned above, any antiwar statement has to be backed up with "I support the troops." For a young person who is feared and mistrusted by society, this unwaivering support for those in uniform could be a powerful draw.

Then comes our schools.

Obviously many of us work in contexts were a critical examination of the role of the military could bring serious backlash from administrators and the community. This is an emotionally charged issue especially when it involves family members. What i think is less talked about is the challenges those of us face even in supportive learning environments.

Many educators continue to see the military as a way out for their students, especially those who are struggling with a lack of options after graduation. A critical examination of military service can be seen as closing more doors for our students.

A more hidden challenge that i personally have struggled with more than any other is the attack on any form of critical questioning from the increasing focus on standardized testing. Those of us committed to having these conversations with our students have to find ways to creatively weave them into rigid curricula and justify how they are "meeting standards".

At this point it takes enormous resistance for any educator to keep their practice from being dominated by standardized testing which further reduces our schools to sorting mechanisms that are sending many students the military's way.

in teaching about the military what is it exactly that we want people to come out knowing? feeling? do we want them to know the downfalls in the role of the military? or how the military and the role it plays can be bettered?
By answering this one may start to think of various answers to the challenges...

I am a socialist revolutionary committed to eliminating the role of the U.S. military in American society, particularly the predatory role military recruiters play in shaping the attitudes of youth. I am always mindful that I hold extreme views compared to the PTA crowd. Rather than engage mainstream folks in a political dialogue about the military or the neo-fascists running the US Government these days, I prefer to frame our campaign to rid the schools of the military in terms of protecting the privacy rights of children.

I am solely focused on protecting the privacy rights of 650,000 vulnerable youth in public schools who take the military's ASVAB test each year. All test results and private information, including social security numbers are forwarded ti military recruiters without parental consent. For a discussion of this issue, see: http://www.nnomy.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=46

Please contact me if you'd like help researching your state statutes that make the administration of the ASVAB illegal in your state. I can also assist you in drafting a letter to your local school superintendent, requesting that she take steps to protect student privacy.

Pat Elder
Bethesda, MD
www.nnomy.org

I want to just cheer on your work.

I think being a socialist revolutionary within a larger, often stagnant, "PTA crowd," is quite a challenge. I think your focus on "privacy" is a great start to trying to persaude more people to see the profound dangers the recruiters present to youth. NYCoRE is part of a coalition here in new york called Students or Soliders? and we have been fighting with the mayor-contrlled department of education so that they become aware of this privacy issue. It is difficultto get responses as you know from an institutions, but i think the idea of reaching out to parent organizations, churches, and individual families, through the "privacy" conversation is a space for us to beginning to open this movement up.

would be interested in connecting with you later to see how things are going in Bethesda.

edwin
NYCORE

Student privacy rights are a good angle of approach against military insinuation into students' lives. The No Child Left Behind provision which requires districts to supply name, home address, and phone number to recruiters also specifies the right of a student to "opt out" of the process.

We have been pressuring the Chicago Board to take responsibility to inform all students of their opt out rights. Their distribution leaves much to be desired: the form is accompanied by a user unfriendly cover letter from the legal department and is distributed in packets of other materials that can easily distract parents and students from the opt out form.

At our high school, our Students for Social Justice Club has gained administration support for an opt out campaign in which we visit home rooms and explain their rights, then distribute and collect the forms on the spot. This is an opening for wider discussion about military recruitment and war issues.

For a little more discussion of the issue and a copy of the Chicago Opt Out form:http://www.teachersforjustice.org/optoutinformation.html

It is helpful to break down the discussion into two areas - the elements of developing a critical stance toward anything a young person encounters and the particular values of equity, opportunity and violence embedded in any conversation about the current US military, esp their role on campuses. The former is hard enough with the narrowed and test based curriculum but I think an essential starting point. The values debate is more politically charged.
I would be curious if anyone has done the work of collecting from high school students themselves their view of the military - so that we might get a broader sense of their perspective?

A list of challenges would quickly become a laundry list of what is wrong with our education system and society at this juncture. I take all those things for granted to be the landscape in which I try to make change. For this reason when i think challenges i think what is wrong with the movement what can it do better to face the laundry list of challenges. In that respect and focusing on CR I think there are two issues of very serious concern.

1st the movement too often does not treat young people of color as subjects that are aware of their reality and it's contradictions and make choices to make it manaegible not necessary to support it's righteousness. If we understand this then we would spend less of our valuable time trying to teach kids the right politics and instead being allies that make resources available and learn as much as we teach.

Second many activists, teachers concerned citizens and parents.. fall into the trap of waging the resistance to militarism with rhetoric that is confined by the parameters that the recruitment machine loves and is artificial. I.E. these kids have no options, there are no alternatives... There are several alternatives the problem is there is 4 billion dollars highlighting the military "option" and a pathetic fraction of that amount highlighting the alternatives. But alternatives there definitely are. From untapped financial aid and scholarship money to vocational program funds to apprenticeships to community initiatives. The fact is 99% of our society finds other things to do than militarism. Our job is to shine a flashlight on those opportunities.

AFSC has just put together a guide to some of those alterntives on a national scale. It is called it'smy life and is available for many young people for free through the website, also local groups can adapt this idea to include local alternatives.

I think that Pablo poses an interesting question above. Quoting

"the movement too often does not treat young people of color as subjects that are aware of their reality and it's contradictions and make choices to make it managable not necessary to support it's righteousness. If we understand this then we would spend less of our valuable time trying to teach kids the right politics and instead being allies that make resources available and learn as much as we teach"

There is no doubt that our time is limited, and i also agree that we meed to focus more of our resources on highlighting alternatives.

I am not so sure that we can leave out political discussions to place the decision to join the military in context. I do not doubt that young people of color are "aware of their reality and contradictions," however that awareness is not always enough to cut through what a recruiter is saying.

I am not convinced that it is a question of simply highlighting more alternatives. While many young people are aware of various systems of oppression that affect them, some by into the reasons for joining the military that are not just the money and perks.

having conversations placing past and current US Military interventions is important not only for students to consider when facing a decision to enlist or not, but also to place counter recruitment within the broader context of opposing war and imperialism.


I am interested in hearing other peoples thoughts on this

While i restate that i would like to see more energy put to highlighting and making available alternatives:

Content is essential. I agree completely. One of the most oppressive aspects of the mainstream education model in this country is the lack of content. When i said "..learn as much as we teach" i take for granted that we have to bring in a critical perspective on war, economic inequality, ... that is the teaching part.

My fear is the approach i've seen too often where an educated often older person with privilege comes into an oppressed groups class to hand them the very academic analysis that they feel will arm the young ignorant folk to make the revolution tomorrow. I'm exaggerating and being playful to make a point, and that is that this approach alienates people.

I think there are such limited opportunities to bring in content and substance that we have to make sure when we do it, we do it in ways that make it salient to the groups at which it is directed. Rather than have a guy with a masters in political science lecturing on the project for a new american century I would rather have a local youth leader speak on the local struggles and how needed the students are in these home struggles. This of course can tie into the loss of funds for youth programs and education due to war and militarism and a "connecting of the dots", but it is very important that it not be perceived as condescending and that we work hard to make spaces that engage not alienate the target audience.

I've seen this kind of work in many parts of the country but it continues to be the exception not the rule. This is one of our challenges to make the movement take on an ally mentality not a paternalistic one.

One question that the issues that Pablo and Seth are discussing raises for me is the problem of many Americans being in the complex and awkward position of being oppressed and oppressor. A low income youth or young person of color in America is on the butt end of class and race exploitation here. But in many ways they also benefit from American imperialism in terms of access to cheap materials goods, freedom from being bombed by another, more powerful country etc. I think the issues you two are raising speaks to precisely that contradiction. In other words, to what extent do educators pitch this question of joining the military as a problem of being oppressed (i.e. poor people of color are overrepresented) or a problem of oppressing others (i.e. going to foreign countries to kill poor people who have done nothing to you)? I can imagine that the second idea might be a tough sell, particularly if, as Pablo raises, the person making the pitch is of a relatively priveledged background themselves. But I also think it's probably a pretty essential point. Otherwise, potentially, the decision not to join the military is reduced to a question of self preservation, not universal justice. What do people think?

I think there is a lot to explore here. There are certainly issues of race and privilege that must always be considered in all of our efforts.

I also feel that there is no one way to approach this. The approach has to depend on where the individual is coming from who is considering joining the military. The "save your ass approach" is not a productive one in most cases. A purely political approach will also not work for many.

I am aware of the concerns that Pablo raises that a potentially "high and mighty" dogmatic political approach runs the risk of alienating people who are conscious of the forces of oppression and are focussed on making "choices to make it manaegible not necessary to support it's righteousness". All people engaged in this work need to be more aware of where the people they are talking to are coming from and equally if not more aware of the position they themselves are speaking from.

I am interested in hearing more about this from others. I think is is important not to cut completely cut off avenues of discussion as people come to the choice of whether or not to serve from many different places. Perhaps this speaks to a more individualized approach to this. Finding out who is struggling with this choice and talking to them in the way recruiters do, walking them through financial aid forms, vocational program applications etc.

Regardless the possibilities of alienating folks because of a power differential is real and i would love to hear other people's thoughts on this.

I have a question to the panel. My students and I have worked with the American Friends Service Committee on anti-recruitment work. I proposed to my administration to bring AFSC's Cost of War exhibit to our school which essentially puts the cost of Iraq war in very real terms (ie. how many teachers could be paid for for one day of what the war costs). While they were very excited about the exhibit, my principal was concerned about us being too one-sided in our approach and asked if we could also bring some groups that support the war, so that our students could decide for themselves. Just wondering what people would say to this.

Most of the schools already have a program in the school that is specifically to recruit students, I do not if you school has it or not. We already had taken the cost of war exhibit to different high schools, if they already had the display I do not see why the principal should want to have the other side. We already have tons of ad in school and in the media, is it that the other side of the cost of war!.

NYCoRE strongly supports the stance jesus took on this. The challenge is that "the other side" to the cost of war is so enmeshed in the cultures of schools in the U.S. that we don;t actually see it as a side. Teachers and Administrators often fail to see that the other side, like social class, racism, and other fomors of oppressio, is actualy all around us.

Further, I want to go back to Sec. 9528 of No Child Left Behind. It is designed to guarantee that the military has equal access to schools that other recruiters have. A couple points to make here: 1. You can always pose to your adminstrators and colleagues the question does our school actually give equal access to "other" recruiters? (college rec, labor union rec, technicial school rec., etc.)

2. I actuall think that in bringining balance you may actually have the opportunity to poke holes in the military's stance. Our collaborators at Vetereans for Peace here in NY for example love to come and debate the local recruiters in classrooms. These are Vietnam Vets that provide such an important stance, and from what I have heard (I have not been able to go see them, as I have been in the classroom myself) they usually "demolish" the recruiters promises and stances.

So even though balance is already there when you bring in cost of war as an example, you may still find yourself required to bring alternatives views in (wth the end goal of informing students), so use it as an opportunity to find resources that may actually leave the recruiters dumbfounded.
edwin

We are lucky and don't actually have recruiters in our school (our administration will not allow it).

If your school is taking a stand and not allowing recruiters in the school then I would be afraid of opening a door for recruiters that was previously closed. Perhaps a debate with two independent non-governmental pro and con folks can satisfy the balance yearnings of the administration. I'm sure if say college republicans or a pro war civilian organization of any kind could be invited to represent the pro-war position. Chances are they may not show up but the invitation will satisfy the balance needs. If they do show up a committed well informed group of students and activists, and AFSC's dramatic display, and of course truth on their side will surely leave the most lasting effect. In fact sometimes debates really put on display for the students the hypocrisy of the pro war arguments.
The last debate I had was with a recruiter and it ended with the recruiter leaving early because students began grilling him on the poverty draft and the targeting of their school instead of affluent schools a few miles north.
One of the keys is student leadership and participation in the debate and topics relevant to the students and their community.

Although NCLB Sec. 9528 allows the military to have equal access to schools, don't students and parents have the right to remove themselves from such access? Based on current candidates in the running, what are the implications on how this NCLB section on military recruitment in schools will be addressed in the future?

Cidra you are right under NCLB parents are allow to remove students information from being release to recruiters. Some district allow the student to do it themselves but deadlines are different and some school do not give student opt-out form, they have to go and ask for them. Some district also have put this on the emergency form that students have to fill out at the beginning of the school. In the other hand we have to understand that some district just give the opt out form in English, some parents do not how to read English.
You can check Chicago Public Schools policy on recruiter and compare it with other district that have limited the access of recruiters in schools. Is not what we want but I think is a starting point.
http://www.cps.k12.il.us/AboutCPS/Board/Board_Actions/FY08/01/

Is the second one under policies.

I think the debate format-- preferably with live people but also possible to construct with readings-- is pedagogically sound and worth doing. Military recruiters are not qualified for this task. In fact, they avoid discussion of Iraq, U.S. foreign policy, etc. They focus on selling military service as an attractive job choice with good benefits and interesting assignments.

It seems like folks have identified at least three types of challenges in teaching about the military--the perceptions of students, the perceptions of educators and resistance within the system as a whole. I'd like to start with the perceptions of students. Many students feel that they must "support the troops" and that all soldiers are heros, a perception actively promoted by the wider culture in general, and reinforced as well, as Bill pointed out, by the fact that students may have friends or family in the military.

Are there strategies for talking to youth and parents about these issues that you find work better than others? Anyone have any great opening lines? Any things you've tried that have really backfired?

We have to have alternatives to the students, you can not the student to not join the military and not give alternatives, especially when we are talking of students who have a family member already in the military service. Another strategy is to take a vet to the school, who can better tell the history of how is to be in the combat some better than a vet.

THis is a tough one in a place liek New York City.

I think part of it is really getting educators, parent organizations, and community organizations to do some very localized work. Having "career fairs" that provide alternatives and workshops for parents for example can be a good starting point.

edwin

We can just go to the career fair that high school organize every year. I know that here in Chicago there are a lot of career fair that we can go, and the city organizes an annual career fair.

Some points I make with my students:

By the time we get to discussing Vietnam and Iraq, we have already discussed World War II. Students almost universally reject the "just following orders" defense for those who commit war crimes. So I try to segue into conversation of the moral dilemma's presented to soldiers of conscience serving in the US military. The majority conclusion is often, "Why put yourself in that position of two undesirable alternatives?"

As Jesus said before, you can hardly beat a veteran who has seen it up close and had their head turned around by the experience. There are a handful of very committed such veterans who have made it their mission to warn others of the risks. The best ones debunk the military as a job opportunity as well as the nature of US interventions.

I try to steer away from the "save your ass" arguments against military service. I have already been arguing during the Civil Rights Unit that there are things worth risking your life for. Can't have it both ways. It must be an evaluation of the cause for which we choose to fight.

Bsckfire may not be the proper term, but I had this very engaged and thoughtful student who had much to offer during these discussions. He had brought his father's photo album from his tour of duty in Vietnam. He appeared to understand and be critical of US imperialism. After school he joined the Army infantry and is a gunner atop a humvee somewhere in Iraq as we are conversing.

As discussed previously, some administrators or military liaisons (usually head guidance counselors in most schools) serve as gatekeepeers for counter-recruiters. Some ask for balance, others oppose recruitment in their schools, and others give them free reign. I'd like to hear more from counter-recruiters about experiences with principals (or superintendents) in gaining access to schools.

Gary Anderson, NYU

The situation Gary mentions above has been the situation in Chicago: school by school variation dependent upon the whim of the principal or counselor in charge. This has just recently changed with the new Chicago Board of Education Recruiter Policy:

http://policy.cps.k12.il.us/documents/708.1.pdf

The Board legal department allowed counter recruitment activists to be heard as they wrote the policy. Although far from perfect, we believe we are now able to enter any school or any district wide activity that allows military recruiters.

The policy language states: "Recruiters include, but are not limited to, college
recruiters, prospective employers, military recruiters and entities that offer information on
alternatives to military careers." Our earliest tests of this policy seem to verify our interpretation as Jesus Palafox attests above.

Additionally, recruiters are to remain in an assigned area, are not free to roam the halls, and must wait to be approached by the students. The recruiters cannot initiate the interaction.

We were unable to convince the Board to limit the number of recruiter visits. This is under principal discretion, but they must allow other recruiters the same number of times. It's just that the resources behind the recruiters allow them to come frequently, while our shoestring operations are more limited.

I suggest that the Chicago policy might be a useful template for approaching other school districts to develop an even-handed and consistent policy.

I attend a university that runs rampant with advertising for the military, has a very active and extroverted ROTC, and gets a ton of research money from the government. What's your best suggestion for combating the militarization of our campuses without alienating members (or prospective members) of the ROTC?

have you checked in with the folks at CAN - http://www.campusantiwar.net/

they have done some good work here in NY.

where are you located nancy?

edwin

Welcome to Day Two of talkin ‘bout…the military in our communities. I would like to focus today’s discussion on the issue of curriculum in general and, in particular, on “Camouflaged,” the New York Collective of Radical Educators’ new collection of lesson plans on the military and counter recruitment. You can download free excerpts from the book in the column the on the right hand side of this page, or you can buy the book on http://www.nycore.org.

My first question to the panel is, what kinds of curriculum materials do educators need to teach more effectively about the military? What would education about the military look like in a just world?

To the NYCoRE panelists (and anyone else from NYCoRE who wants to chip in) where did the idea for this book come from? Can you talk a little bit about the process you used to create it?

Also, if some panelists (or participants) could respond to the questions posted by Cidra and Gary late last night, that would be great.

Seth from NYCoRE is going to chime in regarding the history of Camouflaged, so I was going to hit a on a few points regarding curricular materials and teaching about the military in a more just world.

I’d actually like to start with the idea of teaching in a more just world.
A more just world would have a tremendous impact on the nature of teaching and learning in general. I firmly believe that a more just world would move us toward teaching that would be less prescriptive and repressive, more dialogic, and more focused on communal responsibility of protecting individual human rights and public life (as determined by localized communities around the world). So not only would teaching about the military change, I argue the way most human practices are taught in schools would change. Okay…I’ll get off my soapbox on this.

The reason I bring this up though is that while we have a less just world right now, educators must teach toward the creation of a more just world, and this requires educators and students to make some pedagogical decisions.

Teaching about the military is a very broad area that can be broken down into a number of topics, and I think educators and students must work together in devising the way they wish to explore the military. Much of NYCoRE’s focus has been on recruitment, but an educator could also work with students by looking at it through colonialism, imperialism, economics, history, sexuality, psychology, international relations, social control, government, or even looking at the military as a specific culture and/or community…the list could go on forever.

So even before thinking about materials, we must make these pedagogical decisions within the framework of “a more just world.” Once we have made that decision then what materials might be needed?

Educators and students need to have access to a wealth of historical and current data regarding the activity of the military. I use the term data here to suggest that both numbers/statistics as well as narratives, historical documents, films, commercials, interviews, etc. I think that more work needs to be done on making this information more transparent and accessible to educators let alone students. So this is really about content area materials. The content should also be coming from different areas including math, science, social studies, and literature. Further this literature must be for varying age levels. Right now youth who have learning disabilities, for example, are one of the most vulnerable communities to recruitment because the military has been “lowering” their entry-level standards. At the same time, this community of students is also the one of the groups lacking in engaging, informative, and accessible resources.

This is just a start what do other people think about teaching in a more just world and what materials are needed?

The origins of the book really go back to the foundations of NYCoRE 5 years ago. The group began with teachers who kept running into each other at antiwar marches after the bombing of Afghanistan. One of the group's first collective actions was to create a curriculum to accompany the Paper Tiger video Military Myths (www.papertiger.org). At this point the collective worked on one issue at a time and soon changed its focus to fighting high stakes testing and the policy of tying 3rd grade promotion to standardized test scores.

When the group decided to diversify and become multi issue, we returned to counter recruitment as a place for the educator voice in opposing the war in Iraq. Paper Tiger received a grant to update the original Military Myths and publish it in DVD format. We decided to revisit the curriculum as we would be able to include the text on the DVD itself.

This time instead of working internally, we put a call out to teachers in the area on our listserve and spoke to allies who had been involved in counter recruitment work in the city. We began discussing an expansion of the curriculum beyond direct counter recruitment and into a broader resource that would challenge any educator no matter what their position on military service to engage students in a discussion of the role the US military plays in their lives, the lives of their communities and the world at large. It was important to us that these lessons address skills and content that are a part of most middle and high school classrooms so that teachers would not have to completely divert from their individual or school curricula to adress these issues.

A small group of teachers from different disciplines responded. We brainstormed ideas for lessons we all felt were important and went off and worked on them individually. we then came back and workshopped each lesson together.

This was an interesting process. There is a lot to be said for in service teachers writing curricula based on work they are trying out in school. When it comes to curricula related to social justice in general and the military in particular, we are often left on our own to be continually coming up with creative ways to bring these issues into our classroom. We wanted to collect some of this in a format that was user friendly, included the kinds of resources we ourselves were looking for as educators and frame them in a way that they could be used in any context in different content areas.

The process proved to be a meaningful way to involve people in a project that has a clear time line and outcome, both challenges for other types of long term organizing we work on.

What resulted was the original version of Camouflaged that was included on the updated Military Myths DVD and available for download on our website (www.nycore.org).

We then got a small grant from the AJ Mustee foundation to self publish the curriculum in book form. We gave the lessons a much more thorough look over and got some additional contributions from people outside of New York who have done work around this issue. This stage proved to be a lot of work editing it for publication and has been a challenge as we juggle school and life, but we learned a lot and here it is!

a long winded history, but hopefully can be helpful to anyone thinking about doing something similar.

One of the chapters I found really interesting in Camouflaged was the one about the DREAM Act (http://www.edliberation.org/talkin-bout/dream-deferred). I liked it because in that chapter you talked about how progressives are split on a provision in this proposed law that would provide undocumented youth the chance to gain citizenship through military service. That lesson asks student to have their own debate over the issue.

I was impressed that this chapter was included because it exposes genuine disagreement among people who share progressive values. I think as progressive educators we often feel so embattled and so limited in terms of time and resources that it’s tempting to offer a narrow ideological perspective. "Tempting" is sort of a loaded term because it implies that doing so is necessarily bad. In fact, I think there are moments when it's the right thing to do. I have sometimes found myself torn between wanting to expose students to all points of view so they can make up their own minds, and wanting them to simply be exposed to a point of view that they don’t get in mainstream education. Is this a dilemma that other educators have faced? How did you deal with it? And to the authors of Camouflaged, what made you decide to include the DREAM Act chapter?

As a student who could probably will benefit from the Dream Act under the first section, I see the Dream Act as a recruiter tool. I know a lots of students who are in the same boat as I do, and other that will join the military service just to get a green card. You are getting a lot of students just by the name, but this proposal doesnt gurantee that your could face diportation, they going to ask you about them. The only thing that you can tell the department of HOMELAND Security is that they are illegal in this country and that they can be deported. In the other hand you have big organization that are presenting this proposal to student but not as the 2007 or 2008 proposal but the 2003 proposal of the DREAM Act, we all know that this proposal is totally different from 2003.

More students will be more likely to join the arm forces than college, they will promise students money for college, when we are talking of students that are from low income families. Like Durbin said this are young men and women ready to serve in our military". We are in a time of war, we need more soldiers. Why is it that Durdin gives money to military school?

As a student that can benefit from this DREAM Act proposal am against it.

Part of the focus on having the DREAM Act is the very notion that is being hit on. Namely, that policies like the DREAM ACT have many facets that divide people.

Teaching multiple perspectives is often times consuming, draining, and confusing for students. But I do feel that it is something we should be striving for. Another part of the interest in the DREAM Act for NYCoRe also comes into play in my thinking about multiple perspectives, and some ideas mentioned in yesterday's discussion. I am talking about citizenship and civic engagement.

Lets step back and think about what the purpose of school is in this nation? Certainly if we consider that schools are only designed for preparing people for the work force and a society divided by categories like class and race then presenting multiple perspectives to wrestle with is actually pretty useless and only further complicates the life of a teacher dedicated to students. But if we consider the idea that schools are an essential place for informing how young people particpate in the society then wrestling with multiple perspectives is critical. I tend to lean on this role for schooling, and i think that young people can be involved in the life of thier larger community by being able to idetnify the dominant message about something like the military and comparing that to alternative messages. When we look at these stances then we can be make infomred decisions about where we stand and how we might then take action in response.

In general I think educators and many young people have assumed that they don't have to do this kind of deep thinking because many of us have never really been asked to do it. Progressive educators may use it as an excuse for just presenting the alternative, but I think it is the very experience of struggling with ideas that can sharpen our own stance.

In working with students i think we need to spend more time on a topic, even it means covering fewer topics. If we create this climate for thinking, then i think we may be better off in the long run.

I was speaking with a young person who is a proud member of her JROTC troupe in her school. Her school has a moving memorial to students killed in the Columbine shooting and one for students from her own school that had been died through violence. I asked her if she felt any tension between the school's robust JROTC program and this stance against violence. She did not seem to think that there was any tension in this. What do you think accounts for what I would call a disconnect between military presence in school and an anti-violence ideology?

On the last day of the discussion, I'd like to talk about the role of teachers outside the classroom. In his foreword to the book, Bill Bigelow describes Camouflaged as, "Teacher activism at its best." Are there models here for developing teaching tools that can be replicated in other places? Given the tremendous pressures that are already on teachers, how can/should they be a part of this larger struggle to change the role the military plays in our society?

The Women of Color Resource Center, based out of Oakland, CA has as a significant component of our programming, a Peace & Solidarity Program, out of which we have created PeaceGAMES- a popular education tool that explores the intersections of gender and militarism, race and class. It is comprised of 6 interactive modules, which include components on media literacy and messages about militarism, as well as highlighting voices of women veterans and a multiplicity of perspectives that they bring to what is often a very black/white paradigm/dialog. Teachers of all sorts can utilize this curriculum in after-school programs, community groups, faith-based groups, and colleges to get folks critically thinking about the role of militarism in their lives. The beauty of the popular education models is that they encourage students to think for themselves and come to an understanding on their own, with all its nuances, rather than being told what to think one way or the other. The curriculum is highly user-friendly and can be modified and replicated to suit he audiences' needs.

I would also offer that connecting to veterans in general is a really important process in teaching about militarism in schools or elsewhere. The peace movement has been notorious for ignoring the voices of veterans, the reasons why they got in to service in the first place, (which are widely varied and complex), their experience in the military and their post-service challenges. In our work with women veterans, we are constantly hearing how they wish the peace movement would be more open-minded and tolerant of these voices and perhaps in so doing, we would be able to build a more informed, strategic anti-war movement.

This resource sounds amazing, is there a way to get it out there?

I agree with what you say about veterans. There is no one that can tell this story like a vet. connecting to local groups is essential, but they are often stretched way to thin as well. perhaps as a movement we should be doing more to support the efforts of anti war veterans to get into classrooms, community centers etc. There are also great films like Military Myths and Sir No Sir that draw directly from vets experiences.

I also think we need to push ourselves, those of us who did not serve in the military, to find a voice that connects with people and does not alienate communities in the way Pablo warned the other day.

This is NYCoRE's tag line. Organizing with teachers presents unique challenges. Many educators have progressive ideas but limit that participation to the work they do directly with students. This is understandable as we are all overworked, and I am most accountible to my own students and their families.

Something NYCoRE has always argued is that if teachers are not active outside of the classroom, we will not be able to do what we want inside the classroom either.

We often frame our work as inside and outside the classroom work. Much of what NYCoRE does is creating materials to help educators address issues that we feel are essential such as Camouflaged, the quick response guides for Hurricane Katrina, May 1st uprising and the Jena 6 (all available free at www.nycore.com), A collection of resources addressing the criminalization of youth. These efforts have all involved contributers from the local and national community who have had varying levels of participation with the organization before and after. They have always been coordinated by core members and we all almost always contribute, but they are collective efforts of our wider community.

We also create opportunities for teachers to interact with each other in ways that impact their teaching in study groups called Inquiry to Action Groups. These are going on right now and there are 60 people participating in conversations about perceptions of Islam, immigrant youth, community school partnerships and Freire and Boal.

We have had a fair amount of success organizing these experiences and materials that ideally will have an impact on how teachers are shaping curriculum, interacting with their students, families etc.

A challenge that we have always struggled with is to get teachers involved as activists struggling to have a direct impact on the landscape of our education system and society at large.

Creating Camouflaged is only a part of what the NYCoRE working group on counter military recruitment has been working on. We are part of the Students or Soldiers? Coalition which has struggled to push the department of education to adopt a clear policy on military recruiters in school here, enforcing what is already on the books and further limiting their access. We have tried to identify allies in high schools around the city to serve as watch dogs and allies to students being targeted by recruiters, participated in Opt out campaigns, fliered outside recruiting stations etc. This type of organizing has been much harder to sustain than the creation of materials or simply participating in a workshop or a study group. With the war itself dissappearing from the media, it is harder than ever to maintain momentum around this issue.

Teachers are hungry for opportunities to interact with other like minded folks as we are often isolated in our own context. Teachers are hungry for materials to help them bring complex and meaningful ideas into the classroom that are too often ignored. We write lessons for a living, so collecting and publishing them for others to use is a viable and valuable use of our time. But teachers are also tired and sometimes microfocussed. We need to challenge ourselves to maintain our "outside the classroom" organizing efforts as well.

In New York it is more clear than ever, that if we do not continue to take the fight outside the classroom and into the streets our schools and classrooms will be warped into test prep factories, they will be little more than the ever more efficient sorting mechanisms that send some students to college, some to the workplace and far to many into the military and prison industrial complexes.

You'll have to forgive me, this question is just huge, so I have a lot to say. here goes:

First the question of being part of a larger struggle.

Dare Teachers Build a New Social Order?

At the heart of NYCoRE’s mission is the notion that “the struggle for justice does not end when the school bell rings.” It is NYCoRE’s stance that educators, like all people, must consider their communal responsibilities to participating in the public life of their communities through the work they do inside and outside the classroom. So inspite of tremendous pressures I think teachers should see themselves as teachers but also as “citizens” that have a responsibility to respond to social realities, including the impact of the military. Students are being recruited, people are dying, the impact of the military here and around the world contiues. How can teachers just stand on the sidelines? I know there is pressure, but I think it is irresponsible of us to worry about a test score if we don't think about how those test score results may already be setting some people up for having the military as thier only option later on down the line. Everything is connected.

On the point of teaching tools I wanted to put out two points:

One…Our intention with Camouflaged, and all of the work NYCoRE does, is to provide educators the opportunity to engage as activists by utilizing the military as a central topic of study—this is a curricular development issue, and curriculum design is a major teaching tool. Studying the military is not something you can wrap up in a nice bow at the end of the day. It takes a lot of exploration and reflection and decision making on the part of the learner and the teacher. We hope that people can look at Camouflaged and see that teaching with “complexity” at the center of a curriculum is something all of us can do with a variety of topics without even really stepping that far out of the classroom. A good example of that is immigration. In New York elementary schools the standards ask us to look at this topic and most of the time teachers look at immigration as a survey of the different groups that have come and talk a little about why they came, etc. But let’s stop and think about how complex this topic is both historically and currently. As educators we can take a complex view to our topic and challenge others to engage, take stands, and take action. This approach is an important “teaching tool” that can be used in the classroom, but I would argue that this can also be taken to the “street,” which is the big point I want to make here.

Many ideas have come from teacher knowledge but they are rarely actually honored and considered outside of the classroom. I would argue that as much as we as teacher-activists can learn from community organizing, we can also share strategy with community organizing. Developing curriculum is a major tool that has been used by activists for various purposes, and it is a tool that teacher activists bring to the table. From curriculum we can gather specific strategies or techniques for structuring social interactions. For example experiential forms of learning is the foundation for the Dream Act lesson Senate hearing simulation. That comes from a long history of using role-plays, or dramatic representations, in the classroom and borrowing from the theater. NYCoRE used role-play tactic when protesting high stakes testing here in NYC. Teachers can work in relationship to the military a simulation with youth or adults inside and outside of classroom. Similarly, “reading” texts like recruitment posters or political cartoons, are experiences that organizers and teachers should be presenting to the people they work with.

The last point I wanted to say is in response to this question of making something replicable. Looking back at the question the idea that there are “models” of teaching tools is important to emphasize.
As a teacher I have come to the conclusion that resources like Camouflage should NOT be intended for specific replication, or to follow as a recipe, but to get people thinking and responding to their local situation. Jonathan Osler’s math lesson on recruitment in Brooklyn is a concrete example of math work that presents great suggestions for analyzing statistics, but it uses Brooklyn as the specific example. Teachers can’t (or at least shouldn’t) just make xerox copies of what was presented and give it to who they are working with. Teachers should look to the approach and the content, but from there they need to ask themselves “what will make sense to present in my context?” or “who are my students and how will they respond?” This is what a lot of teacher knowledge is about. It’s where many of us are coming from.

Here in Chicago it seems as if the challenge to break through to the youth is the strong grip the military already has in our school system. Having the military recruiters on and around campus, using JROTC as an excuse to get out of physical education,and poor conditions in school and at home, the military is the discipline that youth are craving for. They want to belong, fit in, at the same time be a leader. Most students I have met working with Chicago's American Friends Service Committee seem motivated enough to work in other fields but the military is so entrenched in the family, that it seems like the logical next step after high school.Promises of money, travel, skills, life long benefits, dream acts, and other methods have been used to recruit our "strong" into "army strong" If more families and teachers were to incorporate counter recruitment and peace studies in their conversations and classrooms there would be more public knowledge of the devastating effects of war in there communities and in the world.

I think this is a key point that Sheena made in Chicago: "If more families and teachers were to incorporate counter recruitment and peace studies in their conversations and classrooms there would be more public knowledge of the devastating effects of war in there communities and in the world."

I'd like to address the practicality of introducing alternative lessons and counter-recruitment messages in schools.

The community-based organization I work for, Project on Youth and Non-Military Opportunities, has been doing classroom presentations and general school outreach in conservative San Diego County since 1984. We've worked with a LOT of teachers and other school staff both locally and nationally, and one thing we've learned is that the great majority of educators are in political and educational environments that are very different than places like New York City, San Francisco, Oakland and other places where there is more freedom to introduce progressive curricula and themes. Many of them desire to expose their students to these ideas, but with few exceptions, they are prevented from doing so by two things:

1. Very tight course requirements that do not allow them the space to work in several days studying such topics.

2. The real possibility of serious, career-effecting repercussions from their administrations.

I think the NYCORE curriculum and some others I'm aware of are great, and it's important to have educational groups researching and developing materials like these so they are available to those educators who feel they can work them into their courses; however, I don't see enough thought being given to strategies that can help the vast majority of teachers who live in the more conservative rest of the country where such curricula are hard to use.

The teachers we have worked with here will not give a counter-recruitment lesson themselves--they ask us to come into their classrooms because it's safer for them if we (i.e., outside speakers) do it. And, they are only able to devote a single period to the subject. We get more time with a group of students only when it's a student club that has us speak in two parts, or if we give workshops at a youth conference. The only other local exception when it comes to teaching an extended lesson in the classroom is the case of Lincoln High School, which has a new social justice academy where teachers are free to do a more in-depth curriculum on the military and social justice issues.

When it comes to counter-recruitment presentations in public school classrooms, for the reasons described above, we've found it more effective to offer teachers a single period of speakers accompanied by a short (14 m.) video like Before You Enlist (which you can view at www.projectyano.org). Movies like The Ground Truth, Sir. No Sir!, and even Military Myths often seem like ideal c-r tools to us, but they have features that make them impractical in the average classroom environment. Most are too long, some contain profanities and graphic war images (okay in some schools, but very risky in most), and some fail to cover facts and issues that we know from experience are crucial to countering what recruiters will say to students.

I guess I'm saying that it's great to have a few thorough, flag ship-type curricula and a vision of adequate time to teach these subjects, but there are serious barriers to using such plans in many places and it would help if there were curricula designed specifically for those more limited situations.

Rick brings up a very important point and it has been mentioned to NYCoRE before. Like Rick I support the idea of having some "flag-ship-type" curricula for teachers to work from. It is important for us to be realistic about what can be done in different contexts which I spoke of in my previous post, and teachers are very capapble at adapting and finding alternative ways to address contorversial topics. Still...

This point also makes me wonder about teachers, their politics, and their freedom in these conservative situations. Rick's point speaks to how boxed in teachers are intellectually that although they may have a political stance that would lead them to seek out an outisde counter recruiter speaker, the climate of fear and repression that teachers face forces them to do this instead of teaching it themselves.

So while I agree that teachers must continue to do these "covert operations" to explore alternative views, they also need to be asking themselves if there is a need to organize to tranform some of that climate.

A change is needed not only for them, imagine what students are going through? If we collectively accept the limitations and don't start to look at ways we can at minimum interrupt these forces we are just perpetuating the stauts quo.

People should not be teaching and learning in fear...
The reality is that many (most) of us are...
But who will fight for us, if not us?

I'm really interested in the point Rick Jahnkow raises about teaching in areas that are more politically conservative. Obviously, it's already difficult enough to bring these ideas into the classroom even in cities where the overall political environment is more progressive. I am wondering if this is part of the point of NYCoRE's philosophy that both Edwin and Seth quoted about the struggle for justice not ending when the school bell rings. Maybe there are just some places where it would be impossible to try to do much meaningful education of this nature in the classroom. And in those areas, maybe teacher and student organizing outside the classroom is the best place to start. I'm thinking if we try too hard to fit some of these challenges to the status quo into a conservative classroom environment, we run the risk of either overly condensing or overly sanitizing the ideas to the point where they don't mean much any more. Rick, you mentioned that student clubs are often more hospitable to your work. So should we be encouraging more student/teacher after school collaborations in places like San Diego?

This is an important discussion especially in this national context. Having grown up and gone to public schools in north carolina k-bachelors, i am familiar with conservative educational contexts, but also saw some very brave teachers pushing the limits. My memory is slipping now but was it seatle wherein the fall teachers were suspended for supporting students right to conduct a walk out?

One of the goals of the revamped camouflaged was to present materials that teachers could use in a variety of contexts, even conservative ones. The original lessons from the Military Myths curiculum present a very clear and direct political stance.

It could be that my perspective is still slanted from teaching in New York (i have a feeling i'd have been fired many times over teaching in my hometown for things people here dont even bat an eye at) but the lessons from Camouflaged can be adapted to a strict curriculum in a conservative context. The history opf recruitment lesson is a skill building exercise in primary source analysis that should be part of any history program at this point. it could even be used as test prep for Document Based Questions which are on our state tests and AP tests everywhere. Teachers have a lot of flexibility to chose the materials their students interact with. Select primary source documents that present the perspectives often left out of traditional curricula, math teachers can apply the skills they have to teach to real life situations etc. A good social justice educator is well versed in the curricular requirements, standards etc. of their district and state and can justify to any administrator how their lessons fit within this.

As i mentioned in an earlier post, I see the shift towards standardized testing as more of a threat to progressive pedagogy than conservative administrators and districts. This goes back to the question above.

If teachers do not resist this who will? This is an issue that affects our quality of life as much as it does our students.

I think in several settings people end up enforcing parameters that they don't agree with out of fear as someone pointed out. This is a dangerous habit of self censorship. When we decide, "this place is just too conservative" then we don't force that issue to be dealt with we join hands in accepting it and the students suffer for it.
My High School (i realized sometime after graduation) was very conservative and many a progressive teacher self censored because of it. Today i am somewhat resentful that these teachers didn't introduce material and create spaces that could challenge the conservatism of the school.
My English teacher taught me about e.e. commings but I never heard he had something to say about Conscientious Objection or for that matter what that term meant. And the list of examples like that is endless.
If we accept the status quo and then ignore the space of the classroom then our efforts will exist in a ghetto of after school activity which wont touch significant numbers of the student body.
I've had to do workshops and presentations in conservative environments and yes it has been a tough crowd but folks had to defend their status quo and the students benefit from that debate. Other times administrations have canceled my "controversial" presentation but even that forces the issues to be addressed and the conservatives in power to show their reactionary colors or allow a debate.
As long as we are not simply putting out propaganda we should not be unwilling to expand the parameters of perspectives on any issue.

I appreciate Pablo's call for all of us to push ourselves to make sure our students get a chance to hear other perspectives. Like i said, its easier for me to say from here in NYC, but when it comes to military service, students are bombarded from all sides with one perspective, teachers should find a way regardless of their own political postioon, to assuse young people have other perspectives before making sucha life altering decision.

At my Chicago public high school I was once "given a talking to" about having too many radical guest speakers in class. This was the same year that I had had the head of the police bomb squad, an alumnus who was now a Marine fighter pilot, and a moderate candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor. My "radicals" were a VVAW speaker, a community activist who had done a hunger strike to get a new school built, and the father of a fallen Marine from Iraq.

Most of us are walking a tightrope. If we are not taking some risks and facing some opposition, we are probably not pushing hard enough in our particular context. We must be judicious but not cowed. Find your allies, including parents. Advocates and defenders keep us from being alone and strengthen our position in a showdown. However, it is certainly possible that some teaching environments are unacceptable and should be left, if possible.

What a fantastic discussion over these last three days! I am now declaring that talkin 'bout...the military in our communities has officially come to an end. However, that does not mean that people can no longer post. This discussion board will remain here until next week sometime, so both panelists and participants are more than welcome to continue the conversation. What it means is that the panelists are officially released from their duties as panelists. Many thanks to Pablo, Seth, Jesus, Bill and Edwin for sharing their ideas and insights with us. And thanks to all those who participated.

Having said that, I would like to take a moment to respond to the above debate about conservative communities. I am not sure I agree that declining to organize in a certain space is necessarily "ghettoizing." For example, if I wanted to organize a pro-choice campaign, I probably wouldn't start in a conservative church. It doesn't make strategic sense, even if I felt there were women who were members of the church who might be sympathetic or who might benefit from the freedom of choice. As political actors we are always making strategic choices, determining the best way to use limited time and resources. I don't think we should assume the classroom is always the best place to start, and if teachers see their educational activities as limited to the classroom, then they run out of options if that proves either impossible or more difficult then they are prepared to take on. I think a lot of liberatory education, not just on this issue, but on many others, necessarily will take place outside the school environment and that non-classroom spaces are equally essential places to do this work.

I think two issues arise from the moderators take on my call for not "ghettoizing" our work to after school venues. Each deserves it's own space of discussion.

The first is the question of strategy as activist vrs. responcibilities as educators. Do we conserve energy by picking our battles as is the sencible approach in activism and political campaigning or is there a different ethical set of responcibilities that educators vrs. private citizens engaging in activism have to consider. The educator has a direct responcibility to the student to present the true spectrum or their best attempt at the true spectrum of perspectives on these critical issues. A private citizen can choose their battles and indeed lend no energy to a conservative space because they have a different role in respect to the members of that space. Even in that case one could argue we have a responcibility to our human family at all times but it's a bit different than the precise role of an educator who is tasked one way or another with presenting material to that group.
Once you take on a role like an educator you will be presenting material and become actively involved in shaping the content and parameters of what goes on in the classroom. This to me means that to decide not to deal with this space and instead save that energy and perspective for places where there will be less resistance, really means to choose to actively limit the parameters of that space.

The second important issue that arises from the moderators post (apologies if these appear out of order) is that making sure we take the struggle outside the classroom and making sure we don't self sensor in the classroom are not mutually exclusive objectives. In fact most of the schools at which I have participated in a cr workshop afterschool have students that were prepared for this perspective because the teachers who brought me in to the school had already brought this perspective to the dialogue happening in the classroom. Same is true of community spaces where all the young people could also benefit from content in the classroom before the workshop or whatever have you at the community space. We are talking about the difference between a dialogue after an introduction and a cold call.
Teachers and activist energy does need to be sustained in all kinds of creative ways but I don't believe there exists a finite pool of weekly energy that totally diminishes on classroom content or work outside the schools.