The following taken without permission from Civil Liberties News, newsletter
of the MinnCLU, for Sept. '93.  Typos are mine.

======================================================
MCLU opposes Junior ROTC
======================================================

	On June 22, 1993, the St. Paul Public School Board voted to bring
Junior ROTC . . . into the high schools of St. Paul.  The Jr. ROTC program
would be extra-curricular and voluntary in the St. Paul schools.
	The major difference between Junior ROTC and college-level ROTC are
that Jr. ROTC does not provide as much directed military training and parti-
cipants are not required to enter military service upon graduation.
	After strong opposition to Jr. ROTC by some St. Paul residents, led
by Gary Grefenberg, an openly gay man, the St. Paul School Board sent the
proposal back to its Committee on Goals, Rules and Legislation, to further
study the issue.
	On July 27, 1993, at a meeting of the St. Paul Schools Committee, 
MCLU Executive Director William Roath testified in opposition to Junior ROTC
in public schools for the following reasons:
	*  Jr. ROTC discriminates against gay and lesbian participants.  Al-
though Jr. ROTC officials claim that their program does not disciminate, even
against openly gay and lesbian students, they could produce no official rule
or policy to verify their statement.  Roath also pointed out that, because of
the military's ban of openly gay men and lesbians from service and college-
ROTC scholarships, major benefits of the Jr. ROTC program are not available
to openly lesbian and gay participants: preference for college-ROTC scholar-
ships and the ability to join the military service without basic training
and at higher ranks and pay rates.  As a result, Jr. ROTC would violate the
anti-discimination policy of the St. Paul Public Schools, as well as the
right to equal protection of law under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
	*  Unlike other extra-curricular activities, the St. Paul School
Board and local taxpayers have no control over the Jr. ROTC program, un-
less options are given by the Pentagon.  Jr. ROTC selects its own instruc-
tors (few of whom are trained as teachers), and its curricula.  Although
the school board may review the curricula, that privilege is granted at
the discretion of Jr. ROTC.
	*  Participants in Jr. ROTC are required to salute and pledge alle-
giance to the U.S. flag.  Certain religious faiths prohibit their members
from paying such homage to secular symbols.  As a result, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled long ago that public schools may not require students to pledge
allegiance to the flag.  Jr. ROTC in public schools violates this ruling
and thereby discriminates against students, such as Jehovah's Witnesses,
whole religious faith forbids them to salute the flag.
	*  A military program is not appropriate for high school students.
The purpose of public education is to provide students with broad knowledge
and with critical thinking skilss to use knowledge effectively.  But ROTC
teaches the narrow viewpoint of only one institution which is itself contro-
versial: the U.S. military.  Furthermore, it teaches participants to not
think at all in the performance of duties such as drilling and marching.
Thus, Jr. ROTC conflicts with the educational mission of the public schools.
	Along with the MCLU, Junior ROTC was opposed by lesbian and gay
activists, Women Against Military Madness, and individual students and
teachers.  In spite of this, the Committee voted to recommend that the
Jr. ROTC program go forward, with the conditions that: (1) the program not
discriminate against gay and lesbian students; (2) all ROTC curricula be
reviewed by the School Board; (3) the program be reviewed and evaluated
after one year; and (4) the School Board lobby the President and Congress
to end the military ban of lesbians and gays.
	On August 3, the St. Paul School Board voted to adopt the Committee's
recommendations.  [end of article]


				Pat McDarby
				St. John's University
				Collegeville, MN  56321