This post will be lengthy, and I apologize in advance.

The recent ruckus at the University of Washington concerning the honoring of military heroes brought a few interesting facts to light.

On the agenda at the same time the Boyington resolutions were being considered were two other, differing resolutions.

One was R-12-27  A Resolution in Support of the Right of Military Recruiters to be Present on Campus.  You can read the text for itself, the title is self explanatory.  And it comes as no real shock that it was tabled, indefinitely.  Essentially dead without a vote.  No bias there.

The other was the  Yang to its Yin: R-12-29  A Resolution Admonishing the Discriminatory Military Recruitment at the University of Washington.  Again, this one is fairly self explanatory.  What needs explaining is the discriminatory conduct of the military that they so righteously condemn.  At issue is the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy toward homosexual service members.  

I won't debate the merits of the DADT policy, except to say there are equally passionate arguments on both sides of the debate.

What is at stake is federal funding.  Federal law requires access to Military Recruiters on any campus that accepts federal funding.  In the case of the UW it amounts to a huge sum.  Should the school actually ban recruiters it would be devastating.

As a measure of protest (again ignoring the merits of the argument) I really have no issue with it, except that it is part of a growing and I believe connected trend to excise the military from the schools.

You see, there is a similar action taking place locally:  Seattle's initiative I-86, which likewise addresses Military Recruiters.  The initiative is sponsored by a group called College Not Combat.  They are collecting signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot that would discourage the military from recruiting at Seattle Public Schools.   

Both of these attempts to bar or discourage recruiters are not legally binding so these are at best shouts in the wind, but they are both addressing the issue, at least in part, from the same issue:  the DADT policy.

As I said I will not defend the policy nor will I condemn it.  Being a veteran I can understand the military side, but I also acknowledge  the claims of unfairness.

What bothers me more, and forces me to lose respect for both of these groups is the fact that they are cherry picking their victims of discrimination.

Let me explain.  A gay person can walk in to a recruiters office, sign up and serve and as long as he or she wants, as long as they do not self identify as being gay.  The discrimination is not in serving, it is in identification. 

But what of the people who cannot even get that far?  What about the people who are denied entry on more elemental basis?

I am speaking of the disabled, the obese, the physically unfit, people with certain ailments and people over a certain age.

Why must a person confined to wheel chair be denied?  They can fulfill a great many roles, and indeed do in civil service jobs.  So why not put the paraplegic behind the desk in a stateside office and let the able bodied serve in the more physically challenging roles?

Or a person who suffers no impairment except weight?  Same answer?  Must all of the military be slender when they have no apparent need?

Or the person whose fault is being unable to run 10 miles and do 100 sit ups?  

When I was a reservist, I was nearly discharged for having asthma.  Yet in the active component they had no issue with it.  Is that fair?

There are a multitude of classes of people who cannot serve for varying reasons.  

And the worst one yet, is women.  A woman in the military is clearly denied equal opportunity, with the ban on women in most combat roles.  I scoured both initiatives, and sadly I never saw this mentioned.

Anyone who has served has seen how many non combat personnel it takes to support a combat unit, and think how many people that keeps behind the lines.

Equality means equal, or it's meaningless if you are making discrimination your mantra. 

So why are the gays the only class of people worthy of attention?

Perhaps because Gay Rights are in the forefront of public attention in many sectors of society?  In part yes.  I say that because the issue isn't about the victims of the DADT policy.  They are just the excuse that fuels the real cause here:  The anti war movement and the anti military movement.  The truth is, in my opinion, they are using the gays to because it gives their movement popular traction and it gets them high profile endorsements.  Otherwise, they would seek to make the military equal for all, not just to open the doors for one group.

After all, what use is there making it safe for lesbians to serve openly, if they are still a discriminated class? 

And I am convinced it is part of a wider movement.  Consider this:  I thought the College not Combat slogan was familiar and I found out why.  It is the same title used in San Francisco recently, in Measure I.

That measure had the same goal, to urge schools to keep out the military recruiters.

What I found really interesting is who endorses these measures:  The International Action Center.  Go to their web site and poke around.  Their summary says this:

Their website is a veritable manifesto of liberal and socialist causes. 

And it took no effort at all to find the link between these two high school campaigns.

As you will see, this lists both the Seattle and San Francisco campaigns and urges readers to make it into a national campaign.

I also found this list of endorsers for the San Francisco Measure.   A very revealing list.

And they won't stop here.  They are now sending in anti war activists to the schools to speak.

See this story and this story at Sister Toldjah's website.  Cindy Sheehan, who is an endorsee of Measure I (see the list), is speaking at a "volunteer" rally at a school in SF, where students are given extra credit to attend, no opposing and balancing perspective is being offered and no media is allowed to cover it. If you are at all familiar with her, you will know she is not planning on speaking kindly of the war, the president and based on past speeches, Israel and anything else she can think of.  

Don't even get me started on her.....(or look here if you are curious) 

It is clear that these people would seek to indoctrinate our children with all manner of their liberal propaganda.

Look, feel free to talk to your kids all you want about the military.  Pack their heads as full of mush as you want.  But do it at home.  Stayout of the schools and let my children have the chance to make their own choices.   Let me act as a parent to discuss with them their choices, don't beat their heads in with biased activists, propaganda and rhetoric.  Yes, you are entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't give you the right to force it upon my children.

By excluding the military you are excluding a very important facet of our culture, whether you approve of it or not.  The military served me well, and I do not regret a single day of my service.  Many kids might find similar fulfillment.

And as for the UW?  Last time I looked the college was populated by adults, let them make their own choices.  Or are your students too naive to do so?

And all of you quit pretending this is some noble cause to aid the downtrodden gay people.  Call it what it is:  An Anti Military Movement.

No to open track back participants, I will be adding the code to allow me to participate soon.

Crossposted via open trackback to Stop The ACLU; Blue Star Chronicles; Third World Country; Stuck on Stupid; The Cigar Intelligence Agency; Outside the Beltway; Adam’s Blog; Voteswagen; and TMH’s Bacon Bits

Trackback URI | Comments RSS