Bad Apples

There's been a lot happening on the Valdosta State campus in the past few days.  First a series of protests involving walking on a U.S. flag.  Then a publicity hound got in the mix, stealing the flag and giving the group publicity they never could have achieved on their own.  With the media now paying attention, we found that the protesters were affiliated with the New Black Panthers.  And then yesterday, the University police discovered a backpack apparently belonging to the leader of the protesters, Eric Sheppard, that contained handgun.  An arrest warrant has been issued, and Sheppard is now a fugitive, and presumed "armed and dangerous."

Now, the most probable case is that all this true, that Sheppard is an amateur would-be terrorist (or at least an angry young thug), and when the police eventually catch him, they'll be removing a dangerous animal from the streets.

But I can't help being a little suspicious.  Consider the number of stories of police planting evidence.  The many examples of institutional racism in law enforcement.  And of course, the inflamed passions on VSU lately, as the police were forced to defend someone desecrating a flag - a very unpopular decision locally.

Then consider how odd it would be for Sheppard to leave that backpack just lying around.  I mean, come on - who leaves their gun lying around like that?  Isn't it just a bit too convenient that the police not only found the backpack containing the gun, but that they also found "unmistakable evidence" that it belonged to Sheppard?

This is why "a few bad apples" really are a problem.  Most police officers are trying to do a difficult job honestly and properly.  But there's a few doing it wrong - and worse, those bad apples have been left in the barrel for _decades._  It's hard to trust any police officer at this point, because there's no way to tell which ones are bad, and no confidence that even the good cops will report them.

Last, consider that this is coming from a privileged, white, upper-middle-class male.  I've never been stopped by the police unreasonably (a couple of traffic stops, each one deserved); never been mistreated by a cop; never even been the subject of rude behavior from a cop.  And I still have trouble believing this convenient discovery.  How much harder is it going to be for people who get harassed on a regular basis?  Who are the same color as all those unarmed men that have been shot to death by cops in the last few years?  In a community where a black high schooler was found dead, rolled up in the middle of a wrestling mat, and the death was ruled accidental?

I don't expect this to end well.

Where Is the Honor?

I happened to pass by a fraternity house at Valdosta State University on Friday and saw what appeared to be the beginning of a formal ball. The young ladies were all dressed in lovely gowns, looking like a classic collection of Southern Belles. The young men wore matching outfits – costume replicas of Confederate Army uniforms.

Why is there such a tendency here in the South to venerate the Confederacy and the Civil War? I understand the desire to honor heritage, and maintain tradition, and all that – but the Confederacy? It was, after all, a would-be nation that existed for barely more than four years, almost 150 years ago. Surely no one can claim that their ancestors were born and raised in the CSA, simply because four years is far too short a time to raise a child. There was little time to develop Confederate traditions, to create a Confederate heritage – so what exactly are these people honoring? Many people decry the immigrants who fly the flags of their home nations, screaming that they're in THIS country now, they should be honoring their new home instead of their old. Doesn't the same logic apply even more strongly to those flying the flag of a nation that existed so briefly, so long ago?

The brief existence of the CSA is entirely entwined with the Civil War. To honor the Confederacy's heritage is to honor their side of the war – for there are few other lasting accomplishments to be honored. Not to put too fine a point on it...the CSA was a treasonous organization devoted to ripping the United States into two nations, seriously damaging both. Had they succeeded, I would see a point in honoring the founders of the CSA just as we now honor Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders of the U.S. But they didn't. What is it about the losing side of this war that makes it so deserving of honor, especially honor by citizens of the nation that won?

These days you can find innumerable celebrations of the heritage of the Confederacy strewn throughout the South – replicas of the battle flag fly everywhere, monuments and events such as that formal ball pay honor to the fallen Confederate soldiers, and so forth. As a soldier myself, I can certainly understand the desire to honor the fallen. But why honor only one side, and the losing one, at that? Some of the displays include their own apologetics – the bumper stickers that show the battle flag and the slogan “Heritage, Not Hate,” for example. They ignore the reality – there is no heritage of the Confederacy besides the hate. The only reason for the war was to maintain slavery. Many people these days like to claim it was about “States' Rights,” and the loss of power to the Federal Government – they ignore the fact that the only right those states really cared about was the right to enslave other humans. The public statements and documents of the time make it clear – the overwhelming cause of the secessions and the war was the question of slavery. That is the heritage these people are now celebrating. That is the cause they are honoring. That is the tradition they are maintaining. When I saw those students gathering for their event, they appeared to all be white. All things considered, that's not really a surprise.

Campus Recruiting

The Supreme Court decided yesterday that law schools, and by extension, universities, can’t exclude military recruiters just because the school does not support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In this instance, the Court and I are in perfect agreement.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I support gay rights. I believe that gays and lesbians have a stake in this country, and should have as much right as anyone else to help defend it. I further believe that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is the dumbest thing since Crystal Pepsi. It gives us the worst of both worlds. The gay-bashers are not protected from having “deviants” in the foxhole next to them, but since expressing homosexuality is still forbidden, they continue to have their prejudice justified by regulation. This makes them feel free to attack their fellow soldier if they SUSPECT he might be gay – verbally, through job-related discrimination, and even through physical force. Meanwhile, the gay people who decide to live with the restrictions can’t express themselves sexually in any way, not only for fear of attack, but in order to keep their job. That’s got to be destructive to their morale, stability, and emotional toughness – all important qualities to any soldier. I would much rather my buddy in the foxhole be free to make a pass at me, than for him to be nursing resentment at the last several years of repression and mistreatment. After all, I can always tell him “No, thanks, you’re not my type.”

Despite that belief, though, I support the Court’s decision. The Court unanimously agreed that providing facilities for an employer to recruit students does not equate to support for that employer’s policies – so it isn’t a free speech issue, as the school is not compelled to speak. Besides, as the Court stated, the school is free to organize a protest, send out mass-mailings decrying the discriminatory policy, or use any other free-speech means to make the point – as long as they give the Recruiters equal access to the students.

The Court also disagreed with the idea that forcing the school to allow the Recruiters on campus meant forcing the school and the military into an “association,” thus providing the appearance of support for the policy. The school isn’t hiring the Recruiters, nor even enrolling them as students. No reasonable person could see that as associating.

The most telling point to me, though, is one that the Court mentioned only in reverse. The Court stated that since Congress has the Constitutional authority to “raise and support armies,” the law could have simply required the schools to comply. Instead, the law gives the schools the option to bar Recruiters…at the risk of losing all Government funding for the entire university. For some reason, none of the major law schools is willing to accept that penalty in order to express their outrage. That makes me question their sincerity just a bit – is it possible that the schools’ moral outrage at the military’s discriminatory policy has more to do with attracting customers…I mean, students than it does with a genuine desire for fair treatment for all? Free speech is an important right, possibly the MOST important right we have. But if you are going to criticize the government, don’t expect the government to pay for the lecture hall.

Defend the Country? - Not From MY Back Yard!

The increasing furor about military recruiters contacting high school students is really getting on my nerves. More and more parents are up in arms, frightened and angry because military recruiters have set up a table at Career Day, or called their child, or sent them an information packet. They are trying to block recruiters’ access to the schools. They are trying to change the law on releasing student information from an “opt-out” policy to an “opt-in” system. They really appear to want to keep their children from even seeing a soldier, much less talking to one.

Of course, it isn’t that they don’t like us. A spokesman for the National PTA said "We don't have anything against what the military is trying to do. We're just concerned about student privacy." The principal of Louisville's Eastern High says "Certainly we want to support military, but we don't want to be part of the recruitment effort." The sentiment is nearly universal - "We support the soldiers, but we don't want them to contact our children."

Other people are upset about who the recruiters try hardest to contact. Ann Kutay, from a parents' group in Seattle worries "...kids who may not be doing as well in school are targeted by a military recruiter, who tells them they can be a helicopter pilot.” Dustin Washington, a Seattle community activist, believes recruiters target students with lower incomes and minorities.

I understand your fears. I’m a parent of two teen-aged boys – prime targets for military recruiters. I don't want them to join up, and I've told them so. But when you say that you don’t want recruiters talking to your kids, that hurts me. It sounds a lot like someone saying, “Thanks for volunteering to defend my country and protect me from my enemies – I’ll leave your pay on the nightstand, and don’t call me at home, I don’t want my wife to find out.” It sounds like you think my chosen career is “beneath” your children.

It also sounds like you want something for nothing. Nobody likes war, soldiers least of all – we’re the ones who get shot at. But we’re by far the richest country in the world. Without a strong military to defend us, someone will be more than happy to take those riches. And without new recruits every year, we don’t have a military at all. You’re not willing to even let your child HEAR about joining the military, but you expect your neighbors to let theirs join up, so you can continue to live your peaceful life, undisturbed by the sacrifices that keep this nation alive. Or not your neighbors, but those lesser-privileged children down the street, or across town, where the other-colored people live.

That part of the accusation is true, of course. Naturally Recruiters seem to target lower-income and minority teens – those are the ones who are likely to join. People selling second mortgages call home-owners; people selling car insurance look for people who drive; and people who sell careers that don’t require college look for people who can’t afford college, or who won’t succeed there. Who’s to blame for that? The Recruiter? Better look again. Believe me, if a rich kid, or a child on an athletic scholarship, or even an MIT graduate wants to join up, we’ve got room for them…but strangely, not very many of them do. At least when that underprivileged youth joins up, he has a good chance to succeed on his own merits, no matter what color his skin is. Can the civilian world make that same claim?

Oh, and by the way, you’ve had 16, 17, even 18 years to raise your child right, teach them that war is bad, teach them that the military is bad, teach them that they’re too good to defend their country. Are you afraid that a Recruiter can reverse all that in a one-hour conversation? Well, if he can, then maybe he’s saying something YOU should hear, too. An honest Recruiter will be happy to talk to both of you – and if you’re listening, then a dishonest Recruiter (yes, I admit we have some) will have to stay honest around your child. Remember I said I don't want my boys to join? I didn't opt them out of the list the Recruiters will see - and if my sons make informed decisions to join up, I'll try to talk them out of it. If I fail, then I'll worry about them, and lie awake nights wondering if they're safe...and support their decision proudly.

So, all you parents who want to keep Recruiters completely out of your schools and away from your children – you have my utmost contempt. And you have made it quite obvious that I and every other member of the Armed Forces has yours.

Quotes and other information are from the following sources:

Washington Post

Louisville Courier-Journal

ABC News Nightline