[AZTOY]

Students get calls from military after schools share phone numbers
David J. Cieslak
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 28, 2003 06:15 PM

For decades, most Valley high school administrators have willingly released the names and home phone numbers of their students to military recruiters searching for a few good young men and women.

But some students say the recruiters, strengthened by an obscure provision in a recent federal law, are using techniques that border on intrusive telemarketing and harassment.

And critics are concerned that the provision, tucked inside the 1,200-page federal No Child Left Behind Act, forces school administrators to release all so-called "directory information" and allow recruiters onto their campuses anytime they show up.

Some school officials and ROTC leaders believe the recruitment efforts are an invaluable resource to students who can't afford college or need structure in their lives.

Others, like Chris Hernandez, an 18-year-old senior at Mountain Ridge High School in the West Valley, say the recruiters are being overzealous. Hernandez said he received about four calls that came every two weeks from a recruiter asking a litany of questions.

Hernandez, who wants to major in engineering and play football at the University of Arizona, said the recruiter criticized his career choice and pestered him to explain why he was turning down an opportunity in the military.

"I'd rather not have had my information released to the military," Hernandez said. "That's not what I want to do, so why should they bug me?"

Privacy advocates, joined by the local head of the American Civil Liberties Union, say the issue is much larger than aggressive recruiters and a barrage of questions.

The new federal mandate compromises students' rights and may violate other laws that were put in place to protect Americans, they say.

"We've been concerned for a long time and we continue to be concerned every time they whittle away another aspect of our civil liberties," said Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union, the Valley affiliate of the ACLU.

Andrew Silverman, a law professor at the University of Arizona, said he worries the provision violates privacy rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

"Students should have privacy when they go to school, and information should not be given out for purposes of recruitment," Silverman said. "Why is the military any better? Because it's the military?"

Retired Army Lt. Col. Mike Babb, coordinator of Phoenix Union High School District's junior ROTC programs, said recruiters have a stressful, difficult job that gives thousands of students a valuable opportunity.

Babb said the recruiters often prefer to contact students at home instead of interrupting their schedules at school.

"They don't want to disrupt the educational process during the school day," Babb said. "Most of the recruiters are pretty decent, but it's a high pressure job. They come out of there emotional wrecks because the whole time you're wondering if you're going to get enough kids signed up and make the quota."

Maj. Sandy Troeber, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Defense, said recruitment numbers are on the rise, with all branches of the military meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals last year.

Records released from the Pentagon show recruiters enlisted 2,339 people in Maricopa County last year.. Across the state, about 4,200 people were recruited.

According to Valley-based recruiting officials, the impending war with Iraq has not affected recruiting numbers.

Troeber said the vast majority of recruits come from high schools, where recruiters focus much of their attention.

Students and parents will still have the option to sign a privacy form that most Valley school districts offer. Those forms withhold students' names and phone numbers.

But some students, like Veronica Diaz, an 18-year-old senior at Mountain Ridge, declined to sign the form because they want their information and photograph to be included in the yearbook.

The price of being in the yearbook for Diaz: four calls from an Army recruiter last year.

Diaz said she became frustrated when the recruiter refused to take no for an answer.

"I'm not interested in going into the Army at all. I would tell my mom to tell them I'm not here," Diaz said. "They went on forever. They kept persisting. It's not right for the school to just give (information) out."



Reach the reporter at david.cieslak@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-7723.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0228prelude-ON.html

[Patch]

The actions of the military, in my opinion, are no less wrong and completely inappropriate than those of the teachers giving their opinions to their students... there is a time and place for everything and bugging kids at home repeatedly is not among them....seems to me to be harassment....but then I have no doubt others will disagree with me...giving some rationalization and justification to say the military is right to intrude upon these kids and their rights, whom by the way, have made it clear that they would like to be left alone.

[jmbg29]

Students should have privacy when they go to schoolHere is an idea. If you don't want the recruiters to get your public record information, don't attend publicly funded schools. Don't like it when somebody calls you up? Hang up.

If you insist on sucking gravy from the public trough, then shut the:cuss:up about the lumps! :fire: :fire: :fire:

[JohnBT]

When I was in high school in the '60s we'd fill out the recruiter's cards and send them in - with someone else's name on them. So we all ended up getting called anyway.

Back to the article. Those poor babies, don't want to enlist and don't know how to say no and hang up. What a bunch.

John

[CZ-75]

School could institute a "no call" list, such that anyone not interested can "opt out."

[Patch]

Or maybe the military could conduct their business during school hours and leave the kids alone at home....wow...now there is an idea. :cuss:

[Sergeant Bob]

New military MOS: Telemarketing Specialist.
None of the military's d@mn business what a student's home phone # is. Doesn't matter if the school is government funded. They are required to go to school, and private school is not an option for everyone.

[Patch]

:fire:

I find it interesting on how there are 1043 readers and 62 replies to the article dealing with teachers harassing kids during school hours with their opinions about the war. Each person expressing their opinions about how wrong it is for teachers to talk of such matters....how dare they....they should be strung up for sharing their thoughts and for harassing kids. Of course...when the shoe is on the other foot...suddenly it becomes an openly acceptable occurrance. For there is only 123 readers of this particular article (students being harassed by military personnel) and only 6 replies. Seems to me if the those among the 1043 readers of the article dealing with the teachers actually gave a :cuss: about kids....they would be no less outraged about military personnel harassing kids.... the principle is after all the same....or is it that harssment is ok as long as it promotes the agendas of the hypocrites?

[Sir Galahad]

Give me a break. Those kids have a choice. In some countries, the army pulls up in a truck and carts off the graduating class to basic training whether they like it or not. Some people want all the benefits of a military that protects their freedom, but none of the responsibilities.

Boy, just imagine the hard decisions those poor babies will have to make when their boss tells them they have to work a few hours of overtime if they plan on staying employed with the company.

[Justin]

I knew a guy in college who had an interesting strategy for getting the military recruiters off his back.
After getting a number of phone calls to join the military, he finally got fed up and told them that he was gay.

Never got another call.

[Sergeant Bob]

Or maybe the military could conduct their business during school hours and leave the kids alone at home....wow...now there is an idea.
Good idea. The recruiters used to come to my high school a couple times a year, kind of like a job fair. It was kind of cool really. If you wanted to go talk to them, fine. If not, they did not bother you. If some recruiter calls my house looking to fill his quota, his Commander will be getting a phone call too.

Give me a break. Those kids have a choice.
I guess you wouldn't object if the school gave out your child's phone number and he or she started getting recruiting calls from the VPC, Brady Bunch, PETA, The Triangle Foundation, NAMBLA, Planned Parenthood, etc, etc? After all, your child does have a choice.

[Sir Galahad]

That is not the same thing. Bob, and you know that quite as well as I. First, the organizations you mentioned are private advocacy groups, not officials of the U.S. government. One of the reasons the recruiters call is because we do not have a draft. We have a volunteer military. I think having recruiters call at home is a far better trade than a letter demanding you for military service or go to jail, wouldn't you agree?

On the federal government, isn't filling out your tax form an unfair appropriation of your time and far more consuming than a one minute phone call? Be sure and tell kids they don't "have" to do anything in life so they can grow up to be selfish citizens. And the IRS can and will call them at home, to be followed by federal agents at the door.

We're not talking conscription here. We're talking a telephone call. Kids already have it to easy. Yeah, why not take even more responsibility from them? "Oh, poor child! He might have to make an important decision in life! That infringes on his freedom!"

And the people who already PAID for that freedom are....who?

[Sir Galahad]

Oh, and Bob, equating NAMBLA with the U.S. military is a pretty shameful thing to do even to make a point.

[Patch]

___________________________________________________
Boy, just imagine the hard decisions those poor babies will have to make when their boss tells them they have to work a few hours of overtime if they plan on staying employed with the company
___________________________________________________

Am I missing something here Sir Galahad? :confused: I mean, where is your logic in equating "work" with what the millitary is doing? One has nothing to do with the other.



___________________________________________________
I knew a guy in college who had an interesting strategy for getting the military recruiters off his back.
After getting a number of phone calls to join the military, he finally got fed up and told them that he was gay.
___________________________________________________

Justin.....please expalin why it is the responsiblity of the kids to claim they are gay...rather than it being the responsibility of the millitary not to harass the kids in the first place?


____________________________________________________

Kids already have it to easy. Yeah, why not take even more responsibility from them? "Oh, poor child! He might have to make an important decision in life! That infringes on his freedom!"
____________________________________________________

Sir Galahad...with this kind of logic....what can I say but thank you for validating my points.

____________________________________________________
Some people want all the benefits of a military that protects their freedom, but none of the responsibilities.
____________________________________________________

Exactly when did kids or anyone for that matter become required to accept "harassment" by millitary personnel under the predication that it is an American "responsiblity"....Hmmmm.....I do not recall that being apart of the BOR or the Constitution.


Get Real!!!:fire: :banghead: :cuss:

[Sir Galahad]

The point is that people have to make decisions in life whether or not they want or feel they need to. Trying to "save" these kids from having to deal with something they might not want to deal with helps them how? Also, to give them some false sense of their own importance only inflates egos already overblown by a system that stresses "self-esteem" even for people who don't do anything but breathe. They are NOT so important that the military cannot call them and ASK them to come down and listen to a spiel.

Hence, what are these kids going to tell an employer? "Oh, I don't feel you have the right to ask me to work overtime. I should come ask you, but, otherwise, you have no right to ask me." That's the point I'm making.

There was a time that children did chores. Now, I see kids coming into the workplace with absolutely NO sense of a work ethic. Why? Because they've been coddled and protected all their life. Never had to do anything but breathe. And what happens to them in the workplace? They get fired. That's just how life is. Full of decisions and choices and we don't always get to pick when and where we get to make them.

[Sir Galahad]

Patch, the Constitution also does NOT say that military recruiters cannot contact prospective recruits. Recruiting mercenaries or recruiting for foreign militaries is the only recruitment ban issued by U.S. law. The Bill of Rights also does not free you from having to make decisions, deal with your goverment, or say you have the right to never be annoyed. Nor does it say life is fair.

Before you go citing the USC and BOR, perhaps you would do well to take your own advice and, quote, "Get real!!", end quote. You, sir, are the kind of selfish person who thinks the world revolves around him. Get over yo' bad self!

[Sergeant Bob]

That is not the same thing.
We'll just have to differ here. To me it is the same. They should not be giving out my or my childs personal information out to anyone
On the federal government, isn't filling out your tax form an unfair appropriation of your time and far more consuming than a one minute phone call?
Yes it is, but that doesn't make the other OK. As far as being an unfair appropriation of your time , strike time and insert money in it's place, they're interchangeable.
We're not talking conscription here. We're talking a telephone call.
What we're talking about is a right to privacy. The government has no more right to invade our privacy than anyone else.

[Sergeant Bob]

Oh, and Sir Galahad, equating NAMBLA with the U.S. military is a pretty shameful thing to do even to make a point. Please spare me the ad hominem attacks. You know quite well that was not my intent and that statement has nothing to do with the discussion.
And the people who already PAID for that freedom are....who?
Your point?

Sergeant Bob, MSgt, USAF, Retired.

[Sir Galahad]

Your government DEFINES some things that some term "privacy", Bob. For example, your Social Security number is termed a private thing, but your government gives it to you. There are some personal military records employers cannot just call up and get copies of. Medical records cannot be requested by employers in most cases not involving public transportation or commodities haulers. I'm an adopted person and, believe me, getting birth records on the case of some adoptions is next to impossible without permission from the mother. A phone number is not always under a definition of "privacy". That's why telemarketers can call you. The federal government is no more restrained than they are just because they're the government. Why is your telephone company allowed to call to try and sell you a cell phone but the military is not allowed to call and ask if a person is interested in helping to defend the country? That's not logical, Bob, any way you look at it. The telephone is a PRIVATE enterprise, privately owned. As you may know, rights are not absolute on private property. Even if you have an unlisted number, telemarketers are still free to dial at random to try and reach those numbers. In fact, telemarketing computers read the phone book and figure out those unlisted numbers. A phone number, ergo, is not subject to the same protections as something as intrinsically personal as a Social Security number or medical records.

[Sir Galahad]

Bob, it was not meant as an ad hominem attack. I did not slight you or insult you. I said that the linking of the two was distasteful. What, I can't express my opinion but you can?

I was in the army. 101st Airborne. So what? I am able to discern by your handle here you must have been in the military at some point. My statement stands.

[jmbg29]

They should not be giving out my or my childs personal information out to anyoneSimple enough. Don't give that personal information to them. Tell them that your phone number is "private".

Entering your private information into a public record is just that, making a public record.

[Soap]

My conversation with a recruiter:

-"Hello Mr. Flory this is Sgt ____"
-"Good day sir."
-A series of questions follow
-"Actually sir, I have been working on getting my essays done so I can get my recommendations to apply to the Naval Academy."
-"Excellent!"
-More questions
-"So how physically fit are you Dan?"
-"Well sir I run approximately two miles every other day and I lift five days per week."
-"You would be perfect then! Do you have any injuries or illnesses though that would be disqualifying?"
-"Sir, I had childhood asthma, but obviously it doesn't affect me now."
-"Okay, Dan, have a good day."

Never heard back again. Yet some people still like to poo-poo on those who haven't served :rolleyes:

[Sergeant Bob]

Your government DEFINES some things that some term "privacy", Bob. For example, your Social Security number is termed a private thing, but your government gives it to you.
Yep, the "Privacy Act of 1974" disclosure is voluntary. No, you don't have to give it to anyone (except the government), unless you want to buy a house, get a bank account, get a credit card, get a job, driver's license in many states, etc. I'm not real fond of the government's definition.
A phone number is not always under a definition of "privacy". That's why telemarketers can call you. The federal government is no more restrained than they are just because they're the government. Why is your telephone company allowed to call to try and sell you a cell phone but the military is not allowed to call and ask if a person is interested in helping to defend the country?
So, the afore mentioned groups (not to be named lest I be labled shameful) have the same right to call your child as the government?
That's my point. I don't think either has has that right, nor does a school have the right to give out that information. It doesn't matter if the kids nowdays are lazy, good for nothing, couch potatos, it's up to the parents as to who has access to there children at home.
Just because the government doesn't see privacy and the right to raise our children as we see fit as a right, doesn't mean it is not our right. Saying the government can do something just because you can't find anywhere in the Constitution that says it can't, is wrong. Where does it say that they can't make everyone jump through hoops and pay large fees and have all their guns registered in the Big Brother database? Not trying to get off topic but, can you see the point I'm trying to make? See the 9th Amendment.
That's all I have to say about that.

[Sir Galahad]

Bob, an 18 year old is no longer a "child". Perhaps you like the definition of "child" to extend to firearms rights as it does now where, in some states, you can't even touch a gun unsupervised until you're 18 and that's only for long guns. Hiding behind age is a lame cop-out. And, yes, any organization is free to call your home and ask to speak to people there. You, as a parent, are free to say yes or no to them asking to speak to your kids. You are also free to hang up the phone. The phone is your property. The phone lines are not. Requesting laws to stop such-and-such sounds all too familiar, does it not?

Geez, Bob, cut the apron strings!

[TallPine]

Geez, people ... privacy? How many calls did you get from MCI this week?

Tell the recruiters what I tell telemarketers when they ask questions: "none of your business." I also have this special button on my phone for people who won't accept no for an answer :)


This isn't exactly new - back in 1972 (now you know how old I am) the Army Recruiter showed up unannounced on my doorstep with his big binder full of the benefits of enlisting. That was back before I became a grouchy old man, so I politely told him truthfully that I was asthmatic, and he closed his notebook and thanked me for not wasting his time.

Oh, BTW, aren't 18 year olds required to register with selective service? Do you have to provide a phone number with that?

[Patch]

Sir Galahad....you obviously are missing the point in all of this, so let me try to help you one last time.

If we are to believe that "teachers" are wrong for sharing their views about the war with their students....we must also accept that it is wrong for the millitary to call students at their residence to get them to join the war.

The students apparently made it clear to the millitary people calling that they are not interested...thus, the repeated phone calls equates to harassment. When someone says no...leave me alone...it means just that and in the "real world" if they are subjected to continued calls....it becomes telephone harassment, which is a criminal offense.

Under your rationalization, you presuppose that because a kid is in public school, they are not entitled to "privacy" like a kid who is in a private school is entited to receive. Hence, if they do not like it, they can either drop out of school, attend a private school or just deal with the harassment. Obviously the right of privacy is a value you believe should be only for the privileged few.

Also under your rationalization, you assert that a kid should learn to accept harassment because in his life he will have to learn to accept orders from his employer. Living a responsible life (apart of which includes working and being a team player) has nothing to do with being a kid in school and receiving harassing telephone calls from millitary..the key word here is "harassment" and maybe herein lies your misuderstanding. You see, these kids did not sign up to join and then backed out...they did not willingly give their phone number and say...call me later and we'll talk. These kids...in trying to be responsible...are trying to go to school and just be kids.

And you predicate that because a person must fill out tax info to pay the gov't....these kids have no right to be free of harassment and safe in their right of privacy. With each entry you write, it is clear that you advance these kids in age more and more from what they truly are.....to somehow give your rationalizations logic. Though it is obvious that you simply just do not understand. So, I leave you to your logic and to your rationalizations and should you have kids, then I hope you will march them down to the nearest recruiters office tomorrow and force your kid to sign on the dotted line or give your phone number to the recruiters and tell them to pressure and harass your kid into joining the millitary. And if you truly believe that a kid's personal info is public record merely because s/he attends a public shcool....I doubt very much you'd say the same if some freak got a hold of his personal info under the premise that it was "public records" and started stalking your kid. You would most complain and to proclaim that your child has a right of privacy. Because after all....it is your child involved and not "the other guys" so the shoe is always different when on the other foot.

[JohnBT]

"...we must also accept that it is wrong for the millitary to call students at their residence to get them to join the war..."

No, we don't have to accept that it is wrong. You can accept it if you like, but 'we' don't.

John

[CZ-75]

It isn't morally wrong for Uncle Sam to call.

That said, it isn't Uncle Sam's right, either.

Students should be able to actively circumvent the calls, by asking that they be place on a "no call" list.

Recruiters have quotas and pressures to meet, so they may not necessarily be very ethical in their pursuit of prospective recruits.

Young people may not be able to make the best decisions when being badgered. It is no accident that the Moonies and other cults go after the young; it is easier to overcome their resistance.

Anecdotally, I've know those who went into the service thinking they'd get good training, but ended up with a specialty that wasn't worth much on the outside. The military isn't, in general, good for everyone and it doesn't turn folks into more honest, more capable individuals unless that individual wants those qualities to begin with. Plenty of losers have served - I've met more than a few.

[Sergeant Bob]

Bob, an 18 year old is no longer a "child". Perhaps you like the definition of "child" to extend to firearms rights as it does now where, in some states, you can't even touch a gun unsupervised until you're 18 and that's only for long guns. Hiding behind age is a lame cop-out. And, yes, any organization is free to call your home and ask to speak to people there. You, as a parent, are free to say yes or no to them asking to speak to your kids. You are also free to hang up the phone. The phone is your property. The phone lines are not. Requesting laws to stop such-and-such sounds all too familiar, does it not?

Geez, Bob, cut the apron strings!
Aside from all the lame cop outs of hiding behind age?, and condescending comments about apron strings...
Do you have no problem with a school giving out your and your child's personal information?

[gryphon]

You know, these people could always just HANG UP the phone when the recruiters call. You don't have to sit on he phone with them. That's one of the great benefits of the phone, you can stop the conversation at any time.

[clem]

I'm glad the Marine recruiter contacted me when I was a senior in high school. It kept me out of jail, away from drugs and away from the "flower power" crowd. Yes, I went to Vietnam, so what. Tens of thousands of others also went.
I considered it an honor to serve this country as a U.S. Marine.

I was able to retired at 38 years old! Which allowed me to go after a second career.


Where have you been?
What do you earn?

And in closing, you either help defend America or you don't.
I have no friggin use for anti-American actions and comments.