Follow the JROTC MoneyYou might think that the main money behind the campaign to keep JROTC in the San Francisco United School District is flowing directly from the military.
You’d be wrong.
Think Gap, PG& E and the San Francisco Association of Realtors, instead.
They are among the top contributors to a political committee that is supporting Proposition V, which is the measure on the November election that seeks to keep JROTC in the SFUSD beyond June 2009.
Here are the top five contributors to Choice for Students, the pro Prop. V committee in the November election cycle:
1.SF Chamber of Commerce 21st Century Committee: $20,500.
2. Donald Fisher, Gap, Chairman Emeritus: $20,000.
3. Plan C, San Francisco PAC: $10,000.
4. PG&E Corporation: $7,500.
5. SF Association of Realtors: $7,499.
To put those figures in a deeper political and financia; context, check out the next top six largest contributors:
6. SF Police Officers Association: $5,000
7. Keith Phillips, Founder, Project Homecoming: $500
8. Gerald Paratore, Teacher, SF United School District: $300.
9. SF Chapter, Military Officers Association of America: $250.
10. Gwen Chan, Retired: $200.
11.. Elko Council Navy League: $113.
Choice for Students committee treasurer Quincy Yu gave her explanation of why these organizations are backing Prop. V.
“This is not about the military,” Yu said. “It’s about the 1,600 students who used to be served by the JROTC program, 90 percent of whom are minority students. It’s about preserving programs that work for our kids. If our school systems are not robust, they don’t attract middle class, who are then not going to stay in the City."
With a son attending a SFUSD high school, Yu makes an articulate spokesperson for the Prop. V campaign, even if her own son decided not to enroll in JROTC, choosing football, instead.
Yu points to what she calls the hypocrisy of SFUSD buying food from the Department of Defense, while trying to drum JROTC out of town.
Which brings us back to questions of who really pays for JROTC to be in our schools. As it happens, the US Department of Defense pays 50 percent of the JROTC’s teachers’ salaries and 100 percent of JROTC’s supplies. So, even if it’s not making campaign contributions, the military does majorly underwrite the SFUSD’s JROTC program, all year round.
Yu points out that there are no drills or guns in the local JROTC program and claims that less than three percent of its graduates join the military.
“It’s about leadership,” Yu said, noting that 90 percent of kids and 70 percent of instructors in SFUSD’s JROTC program are minorities, with openly LGBT students also in leadership positions.
“The public’s misperception of JROTC have been promulgated by people who want to get rid of the program. People didn’t get rid of JROTC. The students didn’t get rid of JROTC. Four SFUSD school board members did. They used national statistics to try and make a national statement about a local program that tries to do good.”
Yu claims that the SFUSD’s June 2008 decision to strip the JROTC program of its PE credit cost the district 1 million to hire PE teachers, during financially strapped times.
“If you took a program that serves minority students and families and is taught by minority instructors and got rid of it, usually people would be fighting mad, but because it is connected to the Department of Defense, politically motivated individuals are using this as a reason.”
But Prop V is also opposed by many LGBT advocates, who call JROTC “a program of a homophobic military” – and the American Friends Service Committee argues that SFUSD already has a pilot program to teach kids leadership skills.
Local campaign consultant Jim Stearns believes the folks throwing large amounts of money at Choice for Students want to use JROTC as a wedge issue against progressive supervisors and candidates in the November election.
“Because it is a ballot measure committee, it can be coordinated with supervisor campaign,” Stearns said. “It’s not exactly a loophole, but it is a way around the independent expenditure rules.”
To see what Stearns means, let’s follow the money trial left by Plan C, a political committee that donated $10,000 to the Choice for Students campaign.
Classified as a “general purpose” political committee, Plan C is like a perennial plant: it keeps growing from year to year, using its reserves to fund preferred candidates and ballot measures in each annual election cycle.
As such, Plan C is invaluable in terms of connecting the dots between candidates, ballot measures and political ideologies.
In the current election cycle, Plan C received $5,000 from PG&E; $6,000 from the Building Owners and Managers Association; $2,500 from former Republican and now ‘decline to state” financier Warren Hellman; $2,500 from the San Francisco Apartment Association; $7,499 from the San Francisco Association of Realtors and $1,000 from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
So far, Plan C has spent $5,600 in support of Alicia Wang for D1 Supervisor, another $6, 000 in support of Sue Lee as D1 supervisor, and spent $7,000 to oppose Eric Mar as D1 Supervisor.
A SFUSD school board member, Mar has been a consistently progressive voice. He not only voted to ban JROTC, but also voted to temporarily halt construction at Lennar’s Shipyard construction site, until community questions about asbestos dust could be resolved.
The Building Owners and Managers Association, which contributed $6,000 to Plan C, has also spent another $342 to support Measure V, and $8, 744 to support D1 candidate Sue Lee.
And so the trial goes on and on, weaving between numerous perennial committees to build a road map that shows who is really standing behind the candidates and measures in the November election. With more campaign finance reports due between now and November 4, it's going to be a revealing trail to follow.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (11)
Yes and absent ROTC what do we have? Diversity training... That's a WONDERFUL response to ROTC isn't it?
Posted by Shane | October 8, 2008 01:03 AM
Don't you have a son in the military in Iraq? Shouldn't that be stated somewhere in your post/article?
I'm actually a pacifist who's a supporter of the current JROTC program in the schools, so I know all about conflicted feelings. I'd like to hear your conflicted feelings, actually, rather than your pretending this is a black-and-white issue. It's much more interesting than that.
And let's be honest, the JROTC in San Francisco high schools is mostly for Asian kids who would otherwise be bullied in gym classes. Taking that option away from them is just cruel and deeply insensitive.
Posted by sfmike | October 8, 2008 02:10 AM
Sarah, Quincy Yu is selling you a line of baloney:
The Pentagon openly brags that 40-50% of JROTC cadets end up in the military, not 3%. In the words of former Secretary of Defense William Cohen (actually Secretary of War), "JROTC is one of the best recruiting devices we could have." Supporters of JROTC around the country always claim that recruitment only happens somewhere else, not in their program.
No drills? Nonsense. Just look at the picture in the Chronicle last Friday, October 3.
No guns? More nonsense. The Lowell JROTC has an award-winning marksmanship team.
"People didn't get rid of JROTC?" We sure did. Nearly 60% of San Franciscans voted for Proposition I in 2005, demanding that the school district get military recruiters out of our schools.
"Students didn't get rid of JROTC?" They sure did. Over 800 students signed a petition in 2006 to get JROTC out of our schools.
1,600 cadets? A few years ago, yes. But enrollment was down to 1,050 last year, and only 500 this year.
90% of cadets are minorities? Finally, something true. But 90% of the students in the school district are minorities. Nothing unusual about JROTC here.
The Pentagon "majorly underwrites" JROTC? Hardly. JROTC costs school district taxpayers $1 million per year.
(JROTC costs the district $1.6 million per year. The Pentagon pays half of the instructors salaries, not including benefits, about $600,000. Nothing else. The math is simple.)
(Note: The average salary for JROTC instructors is $84,500, plus benefits, far more than the average salary of other SF teachers. They are all retired military officers, chosen by the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Pentagon, required to have nothing more than a high school diploma or G.E.D. The district is required by the Pentagon to hire two instructors for every 150 JROTC cadets. They hire one PE teacher for every 300 PE students.)
Yu complains about the alleged "hypocrisy" of the school district buying food from the Pentagon while phasing out and replacing JROTC. What silliness. Vegetables don't get recruited into the military. JROTC cadets do.
Sarah, did Yu tell you that she got paid over $5,000 to circulate the petition that got Prop V on the ballot (while the pro-JROTC folks were bragging about their allegedly "volunteer" effort). Yu is also the campaign Treasurer. Nice work if you can get it.
As the Bay Guardian recommends, vote NO NO NO on Prop V.
Posted by nortonsf![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 8, 2008 09:34 AM
What bewilders me the most is that this is even an issue. Period. San Francisco (which is always getting attacked for the mere fact that it is a progressive beacon) is known for being strongly opposed to the war (as is the rest of the country), generally pacifist and, in some cases, stridently against certain aspects of the military.
So why would there be an uproar over this issue? Indeed, IS THERE even an uproar over this issue beyond how the Chronicle and Examiner portray things? Are a few deluded, egotistical and/or cynical zealots who haven't done their basic homework overplaying their hand by wrongfully assuming that this is something most San Franciscans support or, in fact, are San Franciscans really so conservative, deluded and passionately pro-military? It's counterintuitive to think the latter -- especially considering that Obama is on the ticket in what is expected to be one of the highest progressive turnout elections in San Francisco's history. If anything, these pro-JROTC mailers would be helping candidates like Eric Mar.
In any case, I wouldn't be entirely surprised (and I would get significant satisfaction) if the JROTC initiative goes down in flames. Certainly, the paltry number of donors (and the kind of donors) to the measure augurs such an outcome.
Posted by expatriate | October 8, 2008 09:36 AM
For more info on the campaign against Prop V, see:
http://www.NoMilitaryRecruitmentInOurSchoolsorg
Posted by nortonsf![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 8, 2008 09:38 AM
Nice work, Norton. I would only add that commerce and militarism go hand-in-hand. In fact, the most consistently outspoken organization against international human rights law has been the US Chamber of Commerce. Without it, such things as GAP sweatshops and slave labor in US colonies like Guam would have a free ride.
Posted by Jay Taber | October 8, 2008 09:39 AM
For more info on the campaign against Prop V, see:
http://www.NoMilitaryRecruitmentInOurSchools.org
Posted by nortonsf![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 8, 2008 09:41 AM
Is the JROTC hurting Eric Mar's campaign in the Richmond? I saw the cadets all around the blocks near my house last weekend, canvassing for votes. And they were talking up Eric Mar as they went along.
Mar and Sanchez never adaquately explained to the JROTC members why they terminated the JROTC program. Eric Mar is an inarticulate, uncreative, knee-jerk politician with no leadership skills. I'm must amazed that his political career has advanced this far solely on his family connections (he comes from a tong with a long history in the Chinese American community). Still, I have to think the Chinese in the Richmond are turning against him in the wake of his JROTC stand. Do we need another know-nothing nanny stater on the Board of Supervisors?
Posted by Neighbor1 | October 8, 2008 05:06 PM
So all those Asian-American kids I have seen around town pounding the pavement to keep their program intact are merely pawns of PG&E?
The public school is the last bastion of working-class San Francisco. The last one. And working-class kids like the program. And, yes, here in San Francisco less than 3% end up joining the military.
And the BoE still has not found a replacement program, as promised. I'm voting YES on V.
Posted by Barton | October 8, 2008 05:30 PM
Unfortunately, the San Francisco Bay Guardian once again repeats the discredited claim that JROTC is a military recruitment program. That is just not true. JROTC regulations prohibit instructors from recruiting students into the military or sharing information about students with recruiters.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any of the thousands of kids, alumni, and parents who have had direct contact with the program. They will tell you there is no military recruitment nor is there any discrimination in JROTC.
My son went through JROTC and I was very impressed with the program. They learned about important subjects such as the U.S. Constitution, first aid, and reading a map. The participated in community service activities such as cleaning up Ocean Beach and library drives. And of course marching, drills, and calesthetics were a regular part of the program. There was no military recruitment.
98% of the JROTC cadets continue on to college whereas only 71% of high school students in the Bay Area graduate from high school. So from the perspective of academic success, JROTC is a success story.
Let's not forget that JROTC has always been a voluntary organization. No student could legally be forced to take JROTC.
JROTC is not for everyone, but for many students JROTC has provided them with structure, direction, and purpose. Many students have found camaraderie in JROTC and for "at risk" students, JROTC has provided a group to fulfill their need to belong instead of looking to gangs.
Even if you or your family would never choose this program for yourselves, please give the other students who love this program and who are able to benefit so much from this program the opportunity to participate.
Please help by voting YES on Proposition V.
Sincerely,
Petra Meyer
San Francisco, CA
Posted by Petra Meyer | October 9, 2008 07:05 AM
Unfortunately, the San Francisco Bay Guardian once again repeats the discredited claim that JROTC is a military recruitment program. That is just not true. JROTC regulations prohibit instructors from recruiting students into the military or sharing information about students with recruiters.
But don't take my word for it. Ask any of the thousands of kids, alumni, and parents who have had direct contact with the program. They will tell you there is no military recruitment nor is there any discrimination in JROTC.
My son went through JROTC and I was very impressed with the program. They learned about important subjects such as the U.S. Constitution, first aid, and reading a map. The participated in community service activities such as cleaning up Ocean Beach and library drives. And of course marching, drills, and calesthetics were a regular part of the program. There was no military recruitment.
98% of the JROTC cadets continue on to college whereas only 71% of high school students in the Bay Area graduate from high school. So from the perspective of academic success, JROTC is a success story.
Let's not forget that JROTC has always been a voluntary organization. No student could legally be forced to take JROTC.
JROTC is not for everyone, but for many students JROTC has provided them with structure, direction, and purpose. Many students have found camaraderie in JROTC and for "at risk" students, JROTC has provided a group to fulfill their need to belong instead of looking to gangs.
Even if you or your family would never choose this program for yourselves, please give the other students who love this program and who are able to benefit so much from this program the opportunity to participate.
Please help by voting YES on Proposition V.
Sincerely,
Petra Meyer
San Francisco, CA
Posted by Petra Meyer | October 9, 2008 07:06 AM