What do you mean by "prejudiced"? Is it "prejudiced" when it denies entry to people with physical or mental disabilities, for example? Is that type of "prejudice" bad? Is it "prejudice" to require SF candidates to successfully complete selection and the Q course before handing them berets and tabs?

Most classifications are actionable on equal protection grounds only when there is no rational basis for employing them. Some, like race, are subject to heightened scrutiny for historical and other reasons. But you have to ask yourself whether sexual orientation is something that has no impact on someone's ability to serve effectively in the military, or whether it is truly irrelevant. Unless you somehow reach the latter conclusion and choose to ignore well-established judicial deference to the military, I think you are throwing around a politically charged and offensive word without understanding its meaning or application.

And you have completely ignored the Navy.

Your right, “prejudiced” is not the best word. I’ll rephrase my thesis: Harvard has an issue with US Military policy and is banning recruiters on campus as a political statement against this policy.

Here is an article I found on CNN website about the Army not making its recruiting quota. I bring the attention to the picture of the protestors trying to get the recruiters out of Seattle. I guess this whole recruiting issue is spreading from the campuses to the streets. I didn’t live through the ‘60s, so I have no base for comparison for the civil unrest.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/09/arm....ap/index.html

I did not mention the Navy, because I don’t know anything about their involvement in this issue. Can you please enlighten me?

I think I will defer to others on that one. For now, anyway. :D

BTW, in your profile, which "NSC" are you referring to?

Ahh, I thought you’re making a joke out of it, but...

NSC= Net Support Company. With Transformation the division Signal BN was split up and given to the UAs. The NSC is the company the supports the Div Main, TAC 1 and TAC 2. Major CO, SGM, and 2 det commanders w/ 1SGs is some of the task org of the company.

Well now, there is an organization with an objective viewpoint. The one thing I can truly say about CNN is that it constantly fails to meet the exceptionally low standards it consistently sets for itself and those that, for some unexplained rationale, depend on them for clarity on issues.

Jack Moroney

We need to stop this idea that the military needs to be diverse like the population it serves. The military spends too much time, money and training making recruits into something they've never dreamed they could become; Soldiers.

Soldiers are different. Always have been, always will. You lose your individual self and become part of something bigger than you can imagine when you sign up and make it through training. Soldiers aren't individuals, they are a Team. Teams think and act as one unit.

11 states voted down the gay marriage proposal so I'm thinking the civilians aren't digging this situation either.

Doc

You're going to love this:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/paynte...paynter08.html

Amen Doc.

When it comes to the moment of truth, I think that this could really bite us in the ass.

--Aric

How ironic...
 

I've been a long-time reader of the forums but haven't really posted (seeing as all of my questions have pretty much already been addressed). Sometimes, however, I see something that irritates me to the point of speaking up, so I guess this is one of those cases.

Ms. Paynter is giving her readers "advice," telling them to not allow their children to serve in the military. Then she takes issue with the "aggresive tactics" being used by the Marines.... jeez, who would have ever thought the Marines would be aggressive in the pursuit of a goal. This is where Ms. Paynter seems confused. If nobody allows their children to volunteer, then the government will have to draft its soldiers, a course of action to which the "journalist" in question would probably be highly opposed.

It's a similar issue i've noticed around here. I go to a very white, affluent school. So many students here or their parents support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet turn around and ask me incredulously, "Why do you want to serve? It's dangerous!" They "believe in the war" and "support the troops" but they seem to be nothing more than fair-weather fans. Their "support" ends at the point where they might have to actually do something or make a sacrifice. Want to really support the troops? Pick up a rifle and k-pot and join them. Just my opinion.

I get alot of that too.

Some people will never understand.

--Aric

It's pretty obvious this woman has an agenda...and I'd bet good money she took "journalistic" license (in quotes since I personally don't consider her article journalism) and embellished the story to the point of sensationalism.

Histrionics at its finest....

I'd be more then willing to bet she barely talked to the kid involved but got most of her "source" information from the mother who since she was so emotionally involved distorted the information. However if it was completely accurate I think its safe to admit the recruiters may have gone a little overboard in persuing the kid.

Actually, it's pretty obvious that she made the story up. No last names, no firm locations... and she's a full-on nut job.