According to the Manhattan Borough President and the New York Civil Liberties Union, "military recruiters are frequently given free reign in New York City public schools and allowed into classes in violation of the school system’s regulations." That's basically the first paragraph of the article. The next few read as follows:
The report, based on surveys of nearly 1,000 students at 45 high schools citywide last spring, said the city’s Department of Education exercised almost no oversight over how much access recruiters had to students at high schools.
“There were recruiters who were in the classroom not to talk to students about reading, writing and arithmetic, but to talk to them about how to get a one-way ticket to Iraq and all the benefits you will accrue by that process,” Scott M. Stringer, the Manhattan borough president, said at a news conference. “This is something that must be stopped. It’s outrageous, and it gives recruiters a captive audience.”
Nearly all the speakers at the news conference, including Mr. Stringer, said they were opposed to the war in Iraq.
The NYCLU goes on to criticize recruiters for "aggressive" recruiting in predominantly minority schools. In the same paragraph (the 8th in the story, by the way) we're informed of the something quite pertinent: The authors conceded that the report was not a scientific study.
Oh! In other words, it's an opinion piece by an anti-war group masquerading as a "study."
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Not Surprising
September 13, 2007 - 20:42 ET by OldSailor88Articles like this are put out all the time without real numbers to substantiate them. Here's a good article in G.I. Jobs about the demographics in the Military in 2006. The Heritage Foundation had this one for the period from 2003-2005.
Bottom line; the Military is as America is. A solid crosscut that shows every race, creed, color, religious preference and monetary background. It's a beautiful thing to see it work on an Aircraft Carrier. Corporate America should ride along and take a few lessons some time.
SEMPER FORTIS
Cure for New York
September 13, 2007 - 21:25 ET by Lame CherryOK so New York gets wacked twice by terrorists and TAKES billions in American tax payer money and in Red Cross handouts, but they have a problem with the United States Military after all of this with recruiting their liberal socio communist children.
If New York doesn't want to be part of America and only a third world state sucking off American money, then cordone the whole of gotham off and tell the terrorists they can have a free fire zone so New Yorkers can learn the 9 11 lesson over and over.
Of course, the New Yorkers can flip al Qaeda the bird as all the politicians there confiscated all their guns and al Qaeda will shoot back at their f word salute. The cops will do what all cops do in go home and protect their own.
Seems like good trade off for America, terrorists want to blow up pieces of America and New Yorkers want other to die for their liberal city........pit gotham against al Qaeda and it will be like John Carpenter's escape from New York.
As an added benefit for CBS and other reality network shows they can dump the 30 million illegals into New York and give a prize of citizenship to those who get out.
Or George Bush could just sign an order employing said Scottie Stringer as a private with 20 of these other ingrates and ship them off to Iraq with no guns, but a nice polished middle finger they can talk to al Qaeda with.
Solve allot of these problems.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
More "free reign"
September 13, 2007 - 23:23 ET by Alfred J. LemireJumping from substance and moving into the sad state of American education, especially
in the government, a/k/a public, schools: Jennifer Medina, who wrote the NY
Times story, repeats a "free reign" error made earlier at the
newspaper, and at the New York Post, the Boston Herald, the MetroWest Daily
News (west of Boston), the Sunday Telegram in Worcester, Mass., the Palm Beach
Post, and The Wall Street Journal. (Ever since the "potatoe" fuss,
I've tried to record newspaper spelling and grammatical errors.)
A reign refers to the rule of a king or queen and, by extension, that of any team
that holds a title or a condition that predominates. The "free reign"
surely does not describe anything like that. I am no horseman, but I'm pretty
sure that the expression comes from a horse having "free rein." Two
reins, which are leather straps, are attached to a bit in a horse's mouth. One
keeps a tight rein on the horse when one tugs on the bit through the reins. A
horse is given freedom when one does not & thus "free rein"
refers to a freedom of action or expression.
I have not read the NY Times regularly since abandoning it in 1993, when I caught
a reporter falsifying a story on the U.S. Senate, not the worst of his
offenses, but the last I'd tolerate. Its staff has made that "free
reign" error on multiple occasions. Wrong once, wrong every time.
To some degree, the multiple errors of grammar and spelling that affect the NY
Times reflect a discouragingly bad educational system. But it also reflects the
lack of discipline of the times, lower case. One does not get the impression
that journalists care to get anything right. And, most definitely, they don't mind functioning as propagandists for certain individuals and groups, like the ACLU. If one does not respect rules of conduct or language, why respect rules that ought to govern how one reports the news?
Free Rein
September 14, 2007 - 06:58 ET by allanfIndeed you are correct it is "free rein". However if the Times chooses to spell it "free reign" it will soon be "free reign"
I guess the New York City schools are for Planned Parenthood and the distribution of free condoms. How could you every allow a US Govermenent agency in there?